What Would Make Aqadvisor Better?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Florian Pellet, Apr 16, 2017.

  1. Florian PelletWell Known MemberMember

    Hey all,
    I've learned from this forum not to rely too much on aqadvisor. I still use it to help me make my stocking list and get a few warnings I might have missed, but then I always use fishlore to validate my ideas. I think this process is good. At least it's worked for me :)

    But what would make aqadvisor better? One example I might think of would be to use more conservative temperature estimates (@TexasDomer always recommends not reaching the outer limits of a temperature range). What else can you think of that would make aqadvisor better? I'm a good computer programmer and I thought I might give it a go.

    Go wild with your ideas and we'll see if something good emerges.
  2. Ed204Well Known MemberMember

    I know this sounds dumb but I find it kinda complicated to select the fish you're looking for.

    You'll need to keep on scrolling and scrolling until you find your fish, I would love if it there are certain sub sections for different families of fish.

    For example: Freshwater fish -> Cichlids -> American Cichlids -> FireMouth Cichlid

  3. Florian PelletWell Known MemberMember

    Kind of like this hierarchy? Freshwater Fish - Freshwater Aquarium Fish

  4. NavigatorBlackFishlore VIPMember

    I think it needs to base its water suggestions on natural conditions for the fish, and not on aquarium lore. Most aquarists over heat tanks. There should be natural history info for every fish - what its habitat is like. Tank info is never enough.
    Our whole hobby has that problem though.
    That's a data problem, not a programming one.
    I think they consistently suggest too many fish in a tank, but that's a point that could be debated for hours.
    It's better than most beginner's sites online already, and while people here may (and should) disagree on details and sometimes on approaches, it's a decent site to use. Every aquarist needs to read at least 3 sites about a fish before they decide to keep it, or to (safely for them) bring questions to a forum like this, and if I were new at this, it would probably be my third.

  5. Florian PelletWell Known MemberMember

    Data can be gathered from multiple websites though (programmatically). And then reviewed here on fishlore (manually). It sounds huge said like this but there are only a few common fish in aquaria and then we can expand slowly to include oddballs.
  6. CraniumRexWell Known MemberMember

    I'd like you to program a big hand that comes out of a person's monitor and bonks them on the head when they ignore perfectly sound advice and do what they were going to do in the first place. ;) That hand has so many applications, not just in fishkeeping. Oh the riches!!
  7. NavigatorBlackFishlore VIPMember

    My biggest issue with Internet fish sites is that there are many hundreds of excellent aquarium fish, but most are poorly presented. As aquarists, we are steered to certain species by the ever narrower choices created by the chain stores and their central purchasing.
    I don't know how it is in France. In my region of Canada, we still have some choices, but not what we would have seen 25 years ago. When I travel in the US and go into standard stores, I am appalled at their lack of choices. The specialty stores in larger cities are great, but fewer and fewer.
    A site like fishlore has mostly people who run a tank or two, and go with the flow. Threads pop up quickly and vanish after a few superficial answers, and in discussions, you get the sense few people bother to read other postings. They tend to listen to themselves, or what they find convenient to hear. I don't see any mechanism for serious review here.
  8. Florian PelletWell Known MemberMember

    What do you think of the Wikipedia list of freshwater aquarium fish? It lacks a lot of details but it's a fairly extensive list IMO.
  9. HerkimurWell Known MemberMember

    I had a hard time getting results when typing in fish for hard water or fish for high PH.

    A lot of us have a high PH and not everybody has room for a 75+ gallon tank and Cichlids.

    Had to read around Fishlore to find out Platies are the perfect fish.
  10. Florian PelletWell Known MemberMember

    So a search by criteria would be good? Like fish that like water at 23°C and pH 8.
  11. CraniumRexWell Known MemberMember

    I just went there and yes, the list is very extensive. It could be the start of a great database but I don't know enough about species to know if it's comprehensive. The whole "remarks" section would have to be re-done -- if there are any remarks (few and far between) I saw one that just said, "Beautiful"

    Back to your original question, then, perhaps it would be nice to have an "Add my Fish" request.

    I'd have to agree. I originally came here to research cycling, and while I am new to fishkeeping I'm not new to forums (forae?). I have read through countless posts where you can tell the OP's question has not been read, or if it has, no one else's has. Some have great advice, don't get me wrong, but in terms of serious review I think you'd get anecdotal at best.
  12. NavigatorBlackFishlore VIPMember

    I have 7 tetras that aren't on that list. In fact, reading it over, I would say 80% of the fish I keep and breed are not listed there. A far far superior source is the Baensch Atlas series, and old fashioned print source that is far beyond what has been put into the Internet.

    If we frequent scientific sites, pdfs, papers etc, the Internet is a treasure trove for interested aquarists. For the average fishkeeper though, the past twenty years have offered convenience, but a serious downgrade in information quality. What you would have found in a public library in 1990 has not even come close to being matched, as the many fish selling sites are still fairly poor sources. The potential is there, and I am not arguing against the technology. The bottom line is the Internet doesn't pay for quality, and the people with the info are not going to bother to work for free to support the owners of websites. Money's made, but not by the writers or content people.
  13. Florian PelletWell Known MemberMember

    Maybe we can change that. Make a collaborative database and split the revenue between content creators.
  14. NavigatorBlackFishlore VIPMember

    The period when an author with expertise would get an advance on royalties and a contract are gone. I see basic sites like this trundling on as the mainstream commercial chains' local monopolies grow. The US example seems profitable.

    It will soon be possible to have simple websites for all the fish available to the casual aquarist, if the trend towards fewer and fewer fish choices continues.

    There are sites like planetcatfish, the Cichlid Room Companion, and Killifish of West Africa to appeal to more interested hobbyists, as labours of love by the experts. What we need in this pastime is curiosity, and if enough people get into the questions posed by fishkeeping, then the hobby could grow again.

    I'll buy the books that still limp to market if they are on fish I want to know more about, and dig up the scientific papers that are public domain. I'd rather work with networks of "physical" clubs, which is where the fish choices are now. It's the individual breeders and the people bypassing the chain stores that will revitalize the North American hobby, or not.
  15. HerkimurWell Known MemberMember

    Yes exactly!

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice