Misleading Behavior of On-Line Fish Vendors

[Stuart60611]

Lisa:

Wow, yet another great post. I really appreciate your input. I only wish you would have entered this discussion many pages back because I think it would spared a lot discord.

I wonder if you could bring your wisdom to bare on this question. Do you have any view as to why the minimum tank size from these sources is off to such a considerable degree in so many instances with respect to certain groups of fish? Maybe, there is something I am not considering here?

 

[ackee]

I remember quite a few contributors to this discussion mentioning that fish seller's recommended aquarium sizes are sometimes a bit smaller they ought to be because all retailers are, in the final analysis, in business to make a sale, and that the data they provide is sometimes slightly slanted in the direction of encouraging that process.

Wisdom is generally brought to 'bear', not "bare". I'm trying to be helpul, to avoid any misunderstandings.

 

[LisaD]

Thanks, Stuart. I've been off and on the boards lately due to real life getting in the way.

I think ackee pretty much hit the nail on the head. I don't have stats to back it up, but I'll bet most salt water set-ups sold are up to 75 gallons. With 55 gallon tanks being the majority. Thus it follows that most fish need to fit in a 55-75 gallon tank. I'm sure this information is out there, somewhere.

Also, I found that many people/companies that hold and sell fish have little or no actual aquarium keeping experience (LA DD is a notable exception). As a seller of many of the rarer and more expensive SW fish species, I'll guess that DD will continue to move towards providing increasingly accurate and useful information for customers. The quality of their livestock, their technical support, and that they back their product is responsible for their leadership in the industry. Dry goods sales are important to DFS, but good quality livestock and associated customer service lead customers to the supplies.

However, as always, any information (especially from sellers, even the best of them) should be independently verified.

 

[Stuart60611]

Well, I don't know if anyone has noticed, but LA has been quietly undergoing a major revision to the minimum tank size information it offers for many species it sells, including apparently the entire large angel and tang categories, as well as species from various other categories, where many species again received well beyond 100% increases and none to my knowledge received any decreases. For example. before this thread LA listed the minimum tank size for a full 15 inch adult emperor angel as 100 gallons and now lists it as 220. Most large angels received similar upward revisions as well as many tangs. There are still a few species that may need some further examination, but the recent revisions makes the situation so greatly improved to the point that the minumum tank size information LA provides is now mostly accurate with respect to all large fish as opposed to being before mostly inaccurate. I am hopefull and confident all further necessary revisions will be done in due course. Now, people can research the fish they want to purchase from LA with confidence that they are receiving correct husbandry information, and we can all post references to LA's website when we want to suggest to RC members suggested husbandry information for a given species which will make things much easier when helping people determine appropriate husbandry requirements. This is a great development for the hobby, and LA can be proud of maybe being the only vendor and a true pet educator who now actually provides largely accurate information in this regard.:thumbsup:

 

[Poomba]

Wasnt the increase in the minimum tank size for the tangs a result of Reef Centrals tang sizing list?

I know as someone new to this hobby I have already learned to disregard the tank sizes given by most LFS and online fish stores, and have instead gone to forums for all my information. Its nice to see a website take the highroad and pushing the right information, even if it might cost them a sale.

 

[Stuart60611]

Wasnt the increase in the minimum tank size for the tangs a result of Reef Centrals tang sizing list?

I know as someone new to this hobby I have already learned to disregard the tank sizes given by most LFS and online fish stores, and have instead gone to forums for all my information. Its nice to see a website take the highroad and pushing the right information, even if it might cost them a sale.

Well, I am sure they all played a role here and credit is irrelevant because the result is what matters. But to be historically correct, the order of events was first this thread (started more than 1 month before RC's tang list was first published on RC), LA's posted response in this thread and announcement of a large increase in minimum tank sizes exclusively to lionfish (which also occured before publication of RC's tang list), the thread's continued focus thereafter on large angels and tangs, the publication of RC's tang list, and then the most recent substantial changes in LA's minimum tank size occuring around Christmas largely focusing on large angels, tangs, and select triggerfish and other species. I have no doubt that the major overhall of LA's minimum tank size information is a direct response to the issues raised in this thread and the result of the able contrbutions of all who particpated (especially those who disagreed with me:hmm2.

 

[ackee]

Stuart, it is clear that you deserve much credit for raising this issue, and that your critical comments regarding aquarium size suggestions provided by on-line retailers may have been among the earliest made in this forum.

I'd like to point out that the third reply to your initial comments, made almost immediately after your very first post on this topic in November, was made by me, and was in complete agreement with you regarding misleading tank size information occasionally being disseminated by retailers. A great many other people agreed with you fully, and many who did not agree felt that it was the aquarist's responsibility to verify information by doing some basic research before ordering a living creature.

May I respectfully point out that the word is 'overhaul', not "overhall".

 

[jeff@zina.com]

I don't have stats to back it up, but I'll bet most salt water set-ups sold are up to 75 gallons. With 55 gallon tanks being the majority. Thus it follows that most fish need to fit in a 55-75 gallon tank.

So, as an extension of this theory, and since the size recommendations have moved upward, new tank owners will need to buy 90-150 gallon tanks...? My LFS will just "hate" that....

Jeff

 

[Stuart60611]

Stuart, it is clear that you deserve much credit for raising this issue, and that your critical comments regarding aquarium size suggestions provided by on-line retailers may have been among the earliest made in this forum.

I'd like to point out that the third reply to your initial comments, made almost immediately after your very first post on this topic in November, was made by me, and was in complete agreement with you regarding misleading tank size information occasionally being disseminated by retailers. A great many other people agreed with you fully, and many who did not agree felt that it was the aquarist's responsibility to verify information by doing some basic research before ordering a living creature.

May I respectfully point out that the word is 'overhaul', not "overhall".

Ackee:

I have never suggested that you did not agree with my view of this issue, and you do not need to post that you have so agreed, yet again, because you have posted this fact no less than 3 other times in this thread. Also, I know I can always rely upon you to point out any spelling errors I may have inadvertantly made in my postings because it seems you are obsessed with pointing this out to me by making postings to this effect every chance you can. So, let me return the favor and remind you that there is no comma used after the word "issue," in your first sentence of the above quoted post because it is not a compound sentence. Now, can we stop with the silly posts about inadvertant spelling errors or gramatical errors and instead perhaps contribute something meaningful in form of a substantative contribution instead of pointing out immaterial and inadvertant errors in others' postings? No one here is posting to demonstrate that they never spell words incorrectly or misuse punctuation, and most of us are just posting in our free time and do not put a great deal of effort making sure that our postings are perfectly spelled or punctuated. This is hobbyists forum, and those of us who post here generally do not consider our postings a professional undertaking.

 

[ackee]

Ackee:

I have never suggested that you did not agree with my view of this issue, and you do not need to post that you have so agreed, yet again, because you have posted this fact no less than 3 other times in this thread. Also, I know I can always rely upon you to point out any spelling errors I may have inadvertantly made in my postings because it seems you are obsessed with pointing this out to me by making postings to this effect every chance you can. So, let me return the favor and remind you that there is no comma used after the word "issue," in your first sentence of the above quoted post because it is not a compound sentence. Now, can we stop with the silly posts about inadvertant spelling errors or gramatical errors and instead perhaps contribute something meaningful in form of a substantative contribution instead of pointing out immaterial and inadvertant errors in others' postings? No one here is posting to demonstrate that they never spell words incorrectly or misuse punctuation, and most of us are just posting in our free time and do not put a great deal of effort making sure that our postings are perfectly spelled or punctuated. This is hobbyists forum, and those of us who post here generally do not consider our postings a professional undertaking.

 

[ackee]

Just trying to be helpful, Stu. After all, you have made it very clear that you are a professional, and I think you should try to appear literate in written communication. Commas are used to suggest a pause in any sentence, and are used in many applications beyond compound sentences, primarily for purposes of clarity by replicating the nuances of speech. Compound sentences, which often hinge on a semi-colon, have nothing to do with the legitimate use of a comma. But I'm sure you knew that.

I'm sorry if I appear obsessed. Perhaps you are correct, and this is not simply a case of you having to have the last word. Yet again I apologize. I've been posting here for years, and have never once mentioned anyone's grammar or spelling. I've done so only in connection with your writing. You may have the last word; I will not reply in this string of posts again.

 

[MedRed]

Well, I don't know if anyone has noticed, but LA has been quietly undergoing a major revision to the minimum tank size information it offers for many species it sells, including apparently the entire large angel and tang categories, as well as species from various other categories, where many species again received well beyond 100% increases and none to my knowledge received any decreases. For example. before this thread LA listed the minimum tank size for a full 15 inch adult emperor angel as 100 gallons and now lists it as 220. Most large angels received similar upward revisions as well as many tangs. There are still a few species that may need some further examination, but the recent revisions makes the situation so greatly improved to the point that the minumum tank size information LA provides is now mostly accurate with respect to all large fish as opposed to being before mostly inaccurate. I am hopefull and confident all further necessary revisions will be done in due course. Now, people can research the fish they want to purchase from LA with confidence that they are receiving correct husbandry information, and we can all post references to LA's website when we want to suggest to RC members suggested husbandry information for a given species which will make things much easier when helping people determine appropriate husbandry requirements. This is a great development for the hobby, and LA can be proud of maybe being the only vendor and a true pet educator who now actually provides largely accurate information in this regard.:thumbsup:

Please stop. You made it evident you'd rather sit here and argue in this thread than contact Live Aquaria and ask them to do the right thing. In a round about way, this thread contributed to their awareness, but not in the way you were proposing. Luckily LA is a reputable retailer that made changes once they were made aware of the situation... just like I said they would. Hats off to LA. I frown upon this thread for your desire to have a popular thread by pushing the last word. Luckily good came out of it. Also, Please take the time to proofread and spell check. I don't use perfect grammar, capitalization, or sentence structure when I'm typing online (I'm sure this post is full of errors), but your spelling and grammar are SEVERE detractors from your lengthy, psuedo-intelligent posts.

 

[Stuart60611]

Please stop. You made it evident you'd rather sit here and argue in this thread than contact Live Aquaria and ask them to do the right thing. In a round about way, this thread contributed to their awareness, but not in the way you were proposing. Luckily LA is a reputable retailer that made changes once they were made aware of the situation... just like I said they would. Hats off to LA. I frown upon this thread for your desire to have a popular thread by pushing the last word. Luckily good came out of it. Also, Please take the time to proofread and spell check. I don't use perfect grammar, capitalization, or sentence structure when I'm typing online (I'm sure this post is full of errors), but your spelling and grammar are SEVERE detractors from your lengthy, psuedo-intelligent posts.

Nothing could be further from reality. As has been made very clear here, this issue was brought to LA many times in the past and nothing changed. I have abolutely no desire to argue for arguement's sake and instead desired only to draw awareness to a serious problem and attempt to find a solution. You make it sound that this thread somehow pointed out something that LA was completely oblivious to, and all that had to be done was to simply ask the company to stop misleading consumers at the company's financial detriment, and the company would have done so. This is simply untrue because I have read many postngs from others who have commented about this subject, and some of which have brought this to LA's attention without any change. The pressure created from the very vocal challenge on this issue occuring in this thread, and LA's inability to defend their minimum tank size information related to certain species was the sole reason this change occured. If LA was so shocked and unaware of this issue then why did LA need absolutely no help from me or anyone else in this thread to very quickly figure out on their own exactly which of a multitude of species needed massive (and usually much greater than 100%) upward revisions to minimum tank size information. They needed no such help because they knew exactly which species were grossly understated and what the appropriate minimum tank size was for these species based on the company's decades of experience and knowledge. They knew this long before this thread was started, but the company nevertheless continued to publish this misleading information for others to rely upon. I do not think they deserve any awards or substantial praise for correcting such misleading behavior which should have never occured in the first place. Do you seriously believe that LA accidently underestimated by more than 100% the minimum tank sizes for so many species for a period of years, and now that this mistake was first brought to their attention they have corrected a clerical error? But for this thread, LA's change would have never happened anytime near term, and the status quo would have remained as it has for many years, and hobbyists would continue to receive grossly understated minimum tank size information from LA for many species the company sells. I have no desire for popularity because the amount personal attacks and abuse I have had to endure here to make my point certainly has not gained me any popularity. Rather, unlike some who post here just to be abusive, I actually care about this topic and desired to effectuate change which I managed to achieve with overwhelming success. What have you accomplished by insulting me here other than demonstrate your general lack of civility and inability to engage in a thoughtful discussion? My results here speak for themselves.

 

[MedRed]

Nothing could be further from reality. As has been made very clear here, this issue was brought to LA many times in the past and nothing changed. I have abolutely no desire to argue for arguement's sake and instead desired only to draw awareness to a serious problem and attempt to find a solution. You make it sound that this thread somehow pointed out something that LA was completely oblivious to, and all that had to be done was to simply ask the company to stop misleading consumers at the company's financial detriment, and the company would have done so. This is simply untrue because I have read many postngs from others who have commented about this subject, and some of which have brought this to LA's attention without any change. The pressure created from the very vocal challenge on this issue occuring in this thread, and LA's inability to defend their minimum tank size information related to certain species was the sole reason this change occured. If LA was so shocked and unaware of this issue then why did LA need absolutely no help from me or anyone else in this thread to figure out on their own exactly which of a multitude of species needed massive (and usually much greater than 100%) upward revisions to minimum tank size information. They needed no such help because they knew exactly which species were grossly understated and what the appropriate minimum tank size was for these species based on the company's decades of experience and knowledge. They knew this long before this thread was started, but the company nevertheless continued to publish this misleading information for others to rely upon. I do not think they deserve any awards or substantial praise for correcting such misleading behavior. Do you seriously believe that LA accidently underestimated by more than 100% the minimum tank sizes for so many species for a period of years, and now that this mistake was first brought to their attention they have corrected a clerical error? But for this thread, LA's change would have never happened anytime near term, and the status quo would have remained as it has for many years, and hobbyists would continue to receive grossly understated minimum tank size information from LA for many species the company sells. I have no desire for popularity because the amount personal attacks and abuse I have had to endure here to make my point certainly has not gained me any popularity. Rather, unlike some who post here just to be abusive, I actually care about this topic and desired to effectuate change which I managed to achieve with overwhelming success. What have you accomplished by insulting me here other than demonstrate your general lack of civility and inability to engage in a thoughtful discussion? My results here speak for themselves.

No... This issue was brought up with customer service, which recited the same script they give whether a tank is too big or too small. No one here, including you, tried to get in contact with someone of authority.

It's obvious you wanted to make a big deal instead of actually getting in touch with anyone capable of changing anything. Luckily LA saw this this thread and decided to take the wind out of its sails. You are claiming victory, when the same thing could have been done simply by talking to the right people. You keep crying "personal attack", but it's not that at all. It's highly annoying for someone to act like they care yet don't want do actual DO anything. Stop playing the victim Stuart. If you're going to be an activist... then ACT! And on the note of attack... This entire thread has been an attack. The thread title implies it, and you keep insinuating some malicious plot for profit. LA is a sponsor here. That is pretty much an attack on a member.

It's incredibly funny that you explicitly didn't want to contact anyone as you were wanting to work out guidelines far beyond the scope of an online retailer, yet, as soon as tank sizes start changing, you're satisfied. I TOLD you that they wouldn't need our help in coming up with acceptable tank sizes. You explicitly stated that you didn't trust them to do so.

I agreed with you that the tank sizes were too small for some fish. Arguing that point is lost on me. Arguing that that the sizes were too small for profit reasons, or whatever is also lost on me. What apparently was lost on you was me telling you LA would make changes if you talked to someone capable of mandating changes. Who knows who set guidelines for everything. For all we know, there was a template some data entry person used after someone spent 5 hours all in one go placing fish in tank size piles. I would not be surprised if some expert was assigning tank sizes without having full adult size information in front of them.