Viktor, I believe you are intelligent enough to understand that I would never consider you lazy. If that wasn't clear from my previous comments, allow me to make it clear now. I think that you are a VERY intelligent individual, but I think that what you (and Rob) may be missing is how this will work - for the average member.
Viktor, you don't like fluff. Rob wants more academic postings/commentary. Trust me gents, I get it. Take a look at how many thread topics I have started over the 12+ years that I have been here, not many, and probably close to half of them were made into stickys. But ..... the average user on MFK, I am talking the 10's of thousands of other members, do not care for the hard core science, or the hard core data. At least this has been my experience, over a decade of exchanging comments with other members on MFK. Many times it has been painfully clear.
Here's a recent example of what I am referring to, a thread that was just bumped up a day or two ago, in which I originally posted the following. No comments, no likey likes, I think my ink is often invisible to the masses. lol
It is what it is, it's all good, and I still make a solid attempt to post that kind of information as much as I can, with links to peer reviewed papers etc, but overall much of this is passed by. One man's science, is another man's fluff I suppose?
Again, I am thinking about the average user, and playing devils advocate - because someone needs to. None of this is personal amigo. I have much man love for you.
So let me get this straight, someone starts a topic in a journal, posts a bunch of info that is not considered worthy of THEIR journal, and considered bad info for that species (if it even is a species?), and then it is reviewed/policed by other members, who either remove/change the commentary - or force the OP to?
Seriously? I know that's not how you envision the process, but that sounds like the short & sweet of it.
Viktor my man, you would produce some fantastic journals, no question about that, as would other members, but you would also have LOTS of journals being produced by the average member, people that have no freaking clue, from sections all over MFK, including the Flowerhorn and other Hybrids section. They will do it because they are proud of their fish, and want to share their love of their fish with the community - and they will be crushed.
IMO, the net result would be a lot of animosity produced among the membership, where the average user will discontinue, or never use the journal area. Perhaps even stomp off, never to return? I have seen a couple examples of this just recently.
And remember, in order for any of this to work, it requires the input from everyone, not just a few. I think that you are expecting an awful lot from the masses, that I feel at the end of the day won't be standing behind you. In fact, I think what we may see is a large decline in the open & free exchange of information on MFK. In fact, from over a decade of experience of openly sharing experience & information on this site, even the curators (if that's what you want to call them) would most likely not agree on all aspects of care for any given species. Something as simple as feeding raw peas to a fish, would be argued by some anal retentive individuals. (like me) lol How does one tell another member that what they have been doing for 10 or 40 years, does not line up with what we know today?
I think that it's good to have these discussions, perhaps there is some more doable workaround to all of this that can better satisfy the masses, and draw more new members in, because it is the masses that are going to make or break this site, not the likes of any of us. That much I do truly believe.
Viktor, you don't like fluff. Rob wants more academic postings/commentary. Trust me gents, I get it. Take a look at how many thread topics I have started over the 12+ years that I have been here, not many, and probably close to half of them were made into stickys. But ..... the average user on MFK, I am talking the 10's of thousands of other members, do not care for the hard core science, or the hard core data. At least this has been my experience, over a decade of exchanging comments with other members on MFK. Many times it has been painfully clear.
Here's a recent example of what I am referring to, a thread that was just bumped up a day or two ago, in which I originally posted the following. No comments, no likey likes, I think my ink is often invisible to the masses. lol
Just be careful with the krill, krill is high in fluoride, and if fed in excess can be an issue to finfish, especially those kept in soft water.
Fluoride toxicity to aquatic organisms: a review - PubMed
Published data on the toxicity of fluoride (F-) to algae, aquatic plants, invertebrates and fishes are reviewed. Aquatic organisms living in soft waters may be more adversely affected by fluoride pollution than those living in hard or seawaters because the bioavailability of fluoride ions is...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
It is what it is, it's all good, and I still make a solid attempt to post that kind of information as much as I can, with links to peer reviewed papers etc, but overall much of this is passed by. One man's science, is another man's fluff I suppose?
Again, I am thinking about the average user, and playing devils advocate - because someone needs to. None of this is personal amigo. I have much man love for you.
So let me get this straight, someone starts a topic in a journal, posts a bunch of info that is not considered worthy of THEIR journal, and considered bad info for that species (if it even is a species?), and then it is reviewed/policed by other members, who either remove/change the commentary - or force the OP to?
Seriously? I know that's not how you envision the process, but that sounds like the short & sweet of it.
Viktor my man, you would produce some fantastic journals, no question about that, as would other members, but you would also have LOTS of journals being produced by the average member, people that have no freaking clue, from sections all over MFK, including the Flowerhorn and other Hybrids section. They will do it because they are proud of their fish, and want to share their love of their fish with the community - and they will be crushed.
IMO, the net result would be a lot of animosity produced among the membership, where the average user will discontinue, or never use the journal area. Perhaps even stomp off, never to return? I have seen a couple examples of this just recently.
And remember, in order for any of this to work, it requires the input from everyone, not just a few. I think that you are expecting an awful lot from the masses, that I feel at the end of the day won't be standing behind you. In fact, I think what we may see is a large decline in the open & free exchange of information on MFK. In fact, from over a decade of experience of openly sharing experience & information on this site, even the curators (if that's what you want to call them) would most likely not agree on all aspects of care for any given species. Something as simple as feeding raw peas to a fish, would be argued by some anal retentive individuals. (like me) lol How does one tell another member that what they have been doing for 10 or 40 years, does not line up with what we know today?
I think that it's good to have these discussions, perhaps there is some more doable workaround to all of this that can better satisfy the masses, and draw more new members in, because it is the masses that are going to make or break this site, not the likes of any of us. That much I do truly believe.
? 
