Am I the only one who find the articles too scientific?

[Mushroom]

Thanks for the replies Eric and others. I think the main problem is people tend to only seriously read something when it is of direct relevance to them at the time. Thus, if people have an Aptasia problem, they would read up eveything on it no matter how scientific or technical that may be. On the other hand, if it is not of direct relevance to them, they would find it hard to find the enthusium to read the articles word by word.

As to specific examples Eric, let's take your coral taxnomy articles. You know as well as I no matter how well you explain coral ID technique people would still take the simple option and ask for an ID from you or others. The mutitude of scientifc equations in Randy article about calcium relationship with others is another example. How many people you think would not have a clue about them?

Judging by the chronic lack of posts on these forums about the Reefkeeping magazine one has to wonder how many people actually read any of the articles or would most people not just skim through them quickly, in the hope of finding some pretty pictures? In fact, I have to wonder if the Tank of the Month is just about the only thing that most people would bother to read.

I know it is good habit to include references but again how many people would check up on those references?

I am just wondering if there is a way where you can still write about highly scientific topics but present it and relate it in a way that most people who read ReefCentral would still find them interesting and/or write about topics that most reefkeepers would find interesting but you go into far more depth than is generally discussed. If you look at the posts that are in ReefCentral everyday it is not difficult to see what people would be interested in. They want pretty pictures, they want to know more about natural behaviour of fish such as tang, they want to know what exactly each coral eat in the wild, they want to know all the different critters that live rock bring, they want to know more about lighting, they want to know more about pests, they want to know the differences between the different places where corals are collected from.

Hope that helps!

 

[Acolin]

How true. I am glad you brought this up,

How true. I am glad you brought this up,

because it is a subject dear to my heart. Many times, it does seem like the author is talking to some other audience other than us. We are not alone in this problem. Many fine audio reviewers, for example, pontificate upon stereo and home theater equipment as if money was no object for the vast majority of their readers. A cost benefit weighting to their reviews is as foreign to them as upper Mongolia. They contemplate at length upon the elusive virtues of great equipment, while remaining conspicuously mute upon the often quite apparent shortcomings of poor equipment. Burdened no doubt by the dictates of the advertising department, which can offend no paying customer.

The aquarium hobby is no less burdened. In fact, it is worse. Many of the articles published in magazines like Freshwater And Marine Aquarium (FAMA) and others are written by professionals associated with organizations, firms or products in the pet or educational industry. They have some degree of vested interest. This is as true of Bob Goemans, Tom Frakes, Julian Sprung, Iggy Tavares and Bob Fenner, for example, as it is true of Eric Borneman.

This vested interest is double edge sword. One that cuts both ways. While the advanced aquarist receives extremely detailed, precise, narrowly accurate and scientifically valid observations from qualified professionals, they also receive obtuse, jargon ladened and tired tirades without direct and explicit instructions in plain English. Sometimes it seems as the authors are talking to the educational community. Other biologists or researchers, perhaps. Not us plebeians. We get great advice, but are not told what to do with it.

The other problem is that readers are unaware of any other agendas the author might have. If someone writes a great article on fish food, for example, shouldn't all readers know that person is somehow associated with a company that makes fish food? Isn't that relevant? Doesn't that make the author either more of a qualified authority or more suspect in his conclusions? Doesn't it make his research and resources more valuable, more valid?

Isnââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t this polite behavior in any gathering, whether it is online or in print? Don't we always state our credentials? But not here. Not in the aquarium trade. The long time curator of a successful public aquarium writes a great how to do type article for a hobbyist's magazine, yet nothing is said about his professional experience and credentials. What a shame.

I spoke with Don Dewey, the now deceased publisher of FAMA, not too long before his death. It was shortly after the father of Clownfish husbandry, Martin Moe, published a wonderful article on using bleach as a disinfectant for new seawater (if I remember correctly, don't quote me on this, though). The article, I told Don, would carry more weight with his readers if they all knew who Martin Moe was. I believe a brief biography should accompany any author peripherally associated with any organization or product remotely connected to the pet industry.

Eric H. Borneman's bio, for example, could say something like "author of the most popular coral books in the aquarium hobby; including the recent and stunning Aquarium Corals: Selection, Husbandry, and Natural History and the first of its kind A Practical Guide to Corals for the Reef Aquarium." Eric writes some incredible books. They are not too obtuse or ladened with jargon. He should take credit for his work and when he, and other professionals like him, write for publication, we should know who they are.