Misleading Behavior of On-Line Fish Vendors

[JHemdal]

ahud,

I just wanted to clarify, I wasn't speaking specifically of a clownfish, but rather the weight of a typical clownfish living in 20,000 gallons of water. So, if it helps your mental image, think of a small blue tang. Here is the original quote that I wrote:

"The CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics gives the density of living matter in the oceans as: 15*10^-8g/cm^3. That is roughly equivalent to one small clownfish living alone in a 20,000 gallon aquarium!"

I just wanted to put that density equation into a form most people could visualize - a typical fish swimming in what amounts to a large backyard swimming pool.


Jay

p.s. - I wrote this 10 or 15 years ago - so somebody may want to check my math (grin).

 

[spieszak]

No, I have yet to notify live aquaria about this. I do plan to do so with a link to this thread after the thread is more fully developed. The wrong here is not refusing to correct the misinformation, but the wrong here is to provide this misinformation in the first place for the innocent public to rely upon

Hey Stu - this thread is looking pretty much dead, and you haven't posted in a while, so maybe you could summarize what you think has been accomplished by it? If you really do plan on taking it to the online vendors, it would seem you need to be a better steward of the thread.
(snarky comment just because I AM snarky-- the innocent public is counting on you!)

 

[Stuart60611]

Hey Stu - this thread is looking pretty much dead, and you haven't posted in a while, so maybe you could summarize what you think has been accomplished by it? If you really do plan on taking it to the online vendors, it would seem you need to be a better steward of the thread.
(snarky comment just because I AM snarky-- the innocent public is counting on you!)

I am keeping my eye on this thread. In terms of what I accomplished with this thread, I don't think much, if anything, got accomplished other than bringing the issue front and center and probing it in detail which I believe does have value. Comming up with solutions and ressolutions to the issue cannot be accomplished alone and require the involvement of other voices. As such, I have been siting on the sidelines seeing if other such voices came forward. At this point, such voices may never appear because I think it is fair to say that many and even most disagree with my views which I have stated repeatedly is ok and may be correct. Therefore, taking the information contained herein to on-line vendors at this point makes little sense.

I knew very well when I started this thread that it would be controversial and likely result in a heated discussion and that it may not yield anything meaningful in terms of a tangible result. I do not regret starting this thread and continue to believe in the views I have taken. If nothing else, people who have read it may have learned something about the concern and enjoyed a lively discussion.

 

[MedRed]

OP... can you post examples from live aquaria?

 

[Stuart60611]

OP... can you post examples from live aquaria?

They are posted on the first and second pages of this thread.

 

[MedRed]

I only have 2 pages as I don't have my pages on n00b settings. Instead of crying about this here, have you tried bringing it to Live Aquaria's attention?

 

[spieszak]

I knew very well when I started this thread that it would be controversial and likely result in a heated discussion and that it may not yield anything meaningful in terms of a tangible result. I do not regret starting this thread and continue to believe in the views I have taken. If nothing else, people who have read it may have learned something about the concern and enjoyed a lively discussion.

I'm glad you started the thread too, and truthfully as snarky as I can be, I believe the only place where we really disagree here is that you seem to feel that the misrepresentations are intention or ill-hearted, where I believe that they are more than likely honest mistakes or differences of opinion on specific species requirements.
I still think when any of us see what we believe are blatant errors, we NEED to bring them to the attention of the vendor. If there isn't a reasonable response, or a change in what is posted, then we NEED to stop patronizing that vendor.
While many voices from a single thread might do the work you intended here, organizing a group of people with disparate interests (lots of ways to do this hobby) is going to be quite a feat. Given that, I think that you could accomplish the same by encouraging those that post about how they ended up with a fish that shouldn't be in their tank to first find the animal a home, and second report the error to the vendor... Most folks in that scenario are angry about the purchase, and would be willing to do so.. grass roots..

 

[Stuart60611]

I only have 2 pages as I don't have my pages on n00b settings. Instead of crying about this here, have you tried bringing it to Live Aquaria's attention?

This has all been discussed on the prior pages of this thread. I really don't want to retype all this information.

 

[Stuart60611]

I think that you could accomplish the same by encouraging those that post about how they ended up with a fish that shouldn't be in their tank to first find the animal a home, and second report the error to the vendor... Most folks in that scenario are angry about the purchase, and would be willing to do so.. grass roots..

That is an interesting idea. Several pages back and as a further method to attempt to make my point, I considered starting a thread in the New to the Hobby and/or Reef Discussion forum(s) seeking for people to post when they purchased a fish inappropriate for their system based on relying on the minimum tank size information provided by on-line vendors. I decided against it b/c this thread was then so active and taking up already more time than I wanted to commit and did not want to carryout this discussion in yet additional threads.

 

[spieszak]

Not sure if a thread like that would work or not, since it may end up being X'ed by the Mods for bashing. I would think that angry folks wouldn't post angrily, and that it might just end up off the air.
I'm sure the Mods could comment further if they are listening...

 

[MedRed]

This has all been discussed on the prior pages of this thread. I really don't want to retype all this information.

Can you please post their response and willingness to address the issue? Who did you speak with?

It seems like you're on a tear to crucify Live Aquaria. I don't know if your approach is the best way to have them recognize and address the issue. I personally don't believe their intentions were misplaced.

 

[Stuart60611]

Not sure if a thread like that would work or not, since it may end up being X'ed by the Mods for bashing. I would think that angry folks wouldn't post angrily, and that it might just end up off the air.
I'm sure the Mods could comment further if they are listening...

Not more heated or angry than the discussion has gotten here. I don't think anyone strongly voicing anger about being duped in this way would be any more of a problem for the Mods than some of the strong posts made in this thread. There is a line which you cannot cross, but otherwise I think the thread would work.

 

[Stuart60611]

Can you please post their response and willingness to address the issue? Who did you speak with?

It seems like you're on a tear to crucify Live Aquaria. I don't know if your approach is the best way to have them recognize and address the issue. I personally don't believe their intentions were misplaced.

'

As I posted and DoubleM posted, when we contacted LA about this they generally responded with what I believe were pre-prepared remarks (since we both got the same response) about how they designate minimum tank size information. You are entitled to your view that this thread is not the best approach. I do not agree with you that LA's intentions in publishing some of their minimum tank size information involved inadvertant error and not purposeful and motivated by financial gain. I believe that they knew this information was inaccurate, misleading, and incomplete on the first day they published it for their customers to rely upon for all the reasons I stated in the prior pages.

 

[MedRed]

You obviously aren't talking to the right people. Talking to customer service isn't going to get you anywhere. I'm sure their minimum tank size recommendation goes both ways. They will say the same thing to someone wanting to fit a fish in their tank that the websites says will get too big for their tank.

If you're going to crucify them here, at least do so based on the comments given to you by someone of authority, not a canned response from customer service.

 

[Stuart60611]

You obviously aren't talking to the right people. Talking to customer service isn't going to get you anywhere. I'm sure their minimum tank size recommendation goes both ways. They will say the same thing to someone wanting to fit a fish in their tank that the websites says will get too big for their tank.

If you're going to crucify them here, at least do so based on the comments given to you by someone of authority, not a canned response from customer service

My comments here were not in anyway based on anything LA customer service stated. My posts clearly articulate what I based my views upon and provided links to all such information upon which I based my views. I "crucified" LA here as you described based on the information I indicated I relied upon in my prior posts and not my discussion with LA customer service.

 

[MedRed]

Your posts here show that you are nerd raging over this issue without communicating with the people that actually have the ability to affect change. I'd advise you to get in contact with the people that matter. I'd be surprised if there wasn't movement on the issue. This isn't academia, this is a business with real people.

 

[spieszak]

Your posts here show that you are nerd raging over this issue without communicating with the people that actually have the ability to affect change. I'd advise you to get in contact with the people that matter. I'd be surprised if there wasn't movement on the issue. This isn't academia, this is a business with real people.

Uhmm, so you tell him he is attacking by attacking him? Geez... did you read the thread? Its well thought out, and he has good intentions. Help him channel his energy into something productive or leave it alone. (MOD!, MOD!, MOD! Someone should come get me for this)

 

[Stuart60611]

Your posts here show that you are nerd raging over this issue without communicating with the people that actually have the ability to affect change. I'd advise you to get in contact with the people that matter. I'd be surprised if there wasn't movement on the issue. This isn't academia, this is a business with real people.

Your post shows you are ignorant to such a degree that you are incapeable of engaging in an intellegent discussion without resorting to personal attacks in the form of name calling in violation of RC's rules. Perhaps you should actually take the time to read the thread before asking questions about it, challenging the views taken therein, and then attacking the OP on a personal level. It is unbelieveable to me that you have the gaul to make the above statement when you also post above that you have not even taken the time to read the entire thread. A very thoughtful approach on your part.

 

[MedRed]

Your post shows you are ignorant to such a degree that you are incapeable of engaging in an intellegent discussion without resorting to personal attacks in the form of name calling in violation of RC's rules.

If you missed the message I posted strictly because of my use of "nerd raging" then you are deflecting attention from the "correct" way of dealing with this issue. THAT is ignorance.

P.S. Your spelling throughout this thread is atrocious. If you're going to structure your conjecture in a manner belying intelligence, make sure you are spelling your words correctly.

 

[Stuart60611]

If you missed the message I posted strictly because of my use of "nerd raging" then you are deflecting attention from the "correct" way of dealing with this issue. THAT is ignorance.

P.S. Your spelling throughout this thread is atrocious. If you're going to structure your conjecture in a manner belying intelligence, make sure you are spelling your words correctly.

I missed nothing in your message, but you apparently forgot to read the thread before you attacked the views made therein. As for my spelling, I have made quite a few posts here which have taken a lot of time. Because I have gainful employment and other things to deal with I, perhaps, did not take enough time to proof my posts. I think most people can understand this and still manage to understand the information.