I agree with this. I had to look up 4-5 words to get context of what they were talking about. I feel slightly smarter already.
Good Research
- Thread starter Lepisosteus
- Start date
All very valid points that were bought up, not to mention that there are a lot of knowledgeable members here with actual degrees / masters etc on these subjects and even more who are just extremely keen on the hobby...
So i agree it would be great if we could pour more of this knowledge into stickied threads / articles in the forums, this way anyone at any time could use them as reference without the need to always go searching through piles of outside sources or scientific papers for more intermediate information not readily available...
So i agree it would be great if we could pour more of this knowledge into stickied threads / articles in the forums, this way anyone at any time could use them as reference without the need to always go searching through piles of outside sources or scientific papers for more intermediate information not readily available...
The unfortunate thing for myself is a lot of the writing I do is on subjects where my professors are the creators of the published work. Trying to grasp the information they published in 1970 is not an easy task and their level of writing and eye for detail is amazing. With tha It’s easy to find yourself lost in what they are writing. Nothing wrong with having to read it multiple times to grasp the concept and understand the argument. I can’t tell you how many times I’m doing a report and 90% of the information I’m citing was from their original work from 50 years ago.
With that said C Chicxulub has a good point. There is nothing wrong with updating information from 5-10 years ago. I see it all the time in my work. One author will touch a subject in the 1970s but will revisit it again 40 years later.
Don’t let the date of an article drive you away from it. If the paper is from the 1910s does not make it bad information. That would be similar to discrediting the book “On the origin of species”. Good information is good information.
I’ve edited plenty of papers this past year, the degree of quality definitely varies from individual to individual and through expierience. I’ve edited first year biology papers to master theses and you can very easily tell who wrote which.
Like everything, good writing takes practice. I’m not recommending you write every post or text message as if it were a science paper. Remember there are members here who will help. I personally won’t revise every post but I would have no issue editing and doing quick research on a topic if you pm me the work you have. I have enough time on my hands, MFK pm’s go directly to my phone so I reply relatively quick, usually within a few hours.
It's interesting you say this, I was trying to find studies on the exact dose of salt (in ppt) for curing ick years ago.
I found a study in a microbiology textbook from the early 1900s, that spelled out 3ppt as a minimum for catfish ponds.
I experimented with the dose and found the info to be the perfect concentration, in any situation be it tanks, or ponds.
Thats a good thing to know, if i can keep that tidbit of info in mind next time for the next time i hear someone ask for ick treatment.
Then i can jokingly say; you need exactly 3ppt salt for it to work and its got to be true coz it came from a microbiology book from the 1900’s just ask duanes
One comment on "shared personal experience." Many people will share what worked for them as if their personal experience is the right answer.
Unfortunately, since (good) scientific conclusions are based on statistics and large sample sizes, one person's experience may be a good starting point but not statistically relevant.
"The plural of anecdote is not data."
If the 10 XX fish someone kept survived in certain conditions, that does not mean that is the best way to keep those fish (10 surviving fish could be lucky, although admittedly, that's pretty lucky).
Great thread about the importance of good sourcing.
I think of this from a human medical standpoint. The hobbyist sharing his/her experience as gospel reminds me of the smoker saying "I've smoked for 30 years and never had cancer." Sometimes you're lucky and sometimes you're unlucky, but you can increase your odds of good outcomes by following good advice/good date. (Let's hear it for well designed double blinded studies!!!)
I also recognize that there might not be solid studies relevant to our specific fish/aquarium question at hand, and then we probably need to rely on the experiences of other hobbyists.
Unfortunately, since (good) scientific conclusions are based on statistics and large sample sizes, one person's experience may be a good starting point but not statistically relevant.
"The plural of anecdote is not data."
If the 10 XX fish someone kept survived in certain conditions, that does not mean that is the best way to keep those fish (10 surviving fish could be lucky, although admittedly, that's pretty lucky).
Great thread about the importance of good sourcing.
I think of this from a human medical standpoint. The hobbyist sharing his/her experience as gospel reminds me of the smoker saying "I've smoked for 30 years and never had cancer." Sometimes you're lucky and sometimes you're unlucky, but you can increase your odds of good outcomes by following good advice/good date. (Let's hear it for well designed double blinded studies!!!)
I also recognize that there might not be solid studies relevant to our specific fish/aquarium question at hand, and then we probably need to rely on the experiences of other hobbyists.
I'm all for scientific data. However, I wouldn't discredit first hand experience of some senior members. Analysis paralysis can be a huge problem as well.
Regurgitating some info on monsters like you're an expert when all you keep is neon tetras isn't a good route to take. Boots to the ground can be invaluable.
Check out the survival rate of some of these fish today vs in the past due to the trial and error of determined members.
Regurgitating some info on monsters like you're an expert when all you keep is neon tetras isn't a good route to take. Boots to the ground can be invaluable.
Check out the survival rate of some of these fish today vs in the past due to the trial and error of determined members.
My initial post barely touched personal expierience because of the posts above. Without doing controls on the experiments there’s no determining which is better and which is worse. I would agree with
P
PYRU
, not all hobbyist opinions should be ignored. There is a local reef shop/basement hobbiest near me who spent years altering nitrates, phosphates, calcium, alkalinity etc to optimize the color of his frags to better his sales (if you are in the reef hobby you will know who).
Another point that should be touched is being the first reply to someone’s thread. I feel that if you are going to make that initial reply where someone is asking for help then you better give good advice. The first reply is likely the one they are going to go with. If you don’t know, bump the thread so it will be noticed by someone who can help.
Another point that should be touched is being the first reply to someone’s thread. I feel that if you are going to make that initial reply where someone is asking for help then you better give good advice. The first reply is likely the one they are going to go with. If you don’t know, bump the thread so it will be noticed by someone who can help.
