Great work, and very interesting data! Thank you!
Interestingly, if you process the data a little bit to exclude the species with a sample size of less than 10, and a safety rating of >80%, then you get some very interesting results. For example, Asfur comes in at number 8 above flame and bi-colour and is only 4.5% more risky than a cherub which has a reputation for being one of the most reliable reef safe angel species; and the regal angel doesn't even come in the top 10!
Once again, I must thank you for the hard work and great effort putting this spreadsheet together. Anyone with the most basic computer skills can easily manipulate this data to their personal criteria, to customize their level of risk.
Yes, I think the data shows some very interesting trends. One of the main things to note is that most of the angels fall in to the 70-85% range. People will casually say that angels are a "50/50" risk, but clearly that is not the case. I'll take 75% odds over 50% any day. Notable exceptions are the eibli and lemonpeel, which I think we can confidently say are some of the least safe additions.
The other thing to pay attention to is the notes on the fish. In general, I based the decision of reef safe or not reef safe on two criteria: eating/bothering more than one type of coral, and the owner's tone on the fish. There are plenty of fish that were counted as reef safe in this spreadsheet that pick on coral. Even some that eat particular types of coral. But if the owner said "yeah, he picks on SPS but the damage is minimal" I counted that as reef safe with a note that the fish picked. Other people might have described the same fish as "that little bugger nipped every SPS and had to go". The second would have been counted as not reef safe. For example, you'll notice that Flames are 80% safe (a number which has held stable since the early days of the spreadsheet), but a large number of those fish nip with little to no damage, or nip only one type of coral. Another example is Regals, which as you noted are not even in the top 10 safest fish, however that is mostly due to eating zoas and some LPS. NONE have been reported to bother SPS.
I would strongly suggest people who observe fish nipping take time to notice if the fish is actually doing damage - I think a lot of people see one or two nips and immediately label it not safe. I also think that well fed fish are less likely to nip, and healthy corals are less likely to be nipped - and less likely to be damaged from occasional nipping that does happen.
As for myself, I currently have a regal that does not pick on anything. He barely even picks at the rocks, which is weird. From the spreadsheet you can see that regals are likely to eat zoas - of which I don't have any (because a Regal has always been in the plans). I do have some palys that he doesn't bother.
I also have a little 2" Majestic who hasn't touched anything yet, but he's been in the tank less than two months so I haven't added his data to the sheet yet. Again, I have set him up for success - Pomacanthus seem partial to open brains and acans, of which I don't have any, because a Majestic has also always been in the plans.
