Reefers may over-rely on personal experience to accept or reject truth

[brandon429]

Birdfish thank you as well. solid perspective.

Rich your macna talk will be the #1 I'd like to see most. I can't wait to hear how you validate or invalidate simple massive logged outcome on file for anyone to see. You have massive personal procedural bias I expect will be a standout undercurrent in the talk. I will be curious to know how your scope on reef procedure allows for any type of change, efficiency boost or evolution.


If someone would speak on sandbed activity in a macna talk so I can compare it to our results it would be personally fascinating for me.

 

[Thales]

Richard

Of course you don't think the sand rinse thread is compelling evidence for sand rinsing being safer than not, you don't have skin in the game. I know you work at a public aquarium, if that translated into me getting to see you personally take accountability for this much $$ in other people's reefs I'd value it as relevant to the issue. But I can't see that, I have to just take your word on it, I can't read a single thread of you running proxy reef tanks in a given setting. not one.

I haven't worked at a PA since 2020. The tanks I took care of were on public display, as were the tanks of other aquarists that I mentored. Those all cost money and their looking good directly impacted the bottom line of the institution. My home system and lab are pretty public though.
I have published a bunch of articles and talks about my home system and my work in PA's, but I am not really sure what you are wanting from me, so I hope that helps.

remember that time you told me that instant cycle transfers can "expire" when we were discussing reef tank convention cycles? I didn't forget that. you use your clout to try and suppress change.

I don't remember that - link?

I have a big work thread showing they "dont" expire and we have 0% cycle losses on hundreds of pages of cycles that use my method, which hasn't been touted from the official podium all click buyers will follow.

Again, I don't know what you are referencing.

what you and I value as proof currency is 1000% polar opposite.

I don't really use the word proof at all, so I think this is likely true.

feel free to hop right up on the public podium and denounce what I will spend the next ten years grouping into readable threads around a given theme. I love this type of gradient, when a pro says something doesn't work and then we spend ten years directly showing it does and it's open to read from anyone, anytime, and I don't try and squelch their comments to fit my upcoming script.

What did I say didn't work? What did I ask you to spend 10 years doing I am very confused.

Rich Ross: work threads don't work they're made up anecdote, hyperbole, no value, no science.

I didn't say anything like that. I wrote an entire artilce on the power of anecdote.

nerd from the internet who sells cable for a living: posts a 51 page work thread with two million dollars of reef tanks handled in ways the pros said was impossible and not one loss coming or going. give a talk on that.

No one said it was impossible. It is strange that you take partial disagreement as complete rejection.

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

People are just suggesting how to improve the work you are doing. That's all.

Not me. I’m suggesting….tone it down! Stop bullying people, stop barraging post after post, after post, overtaking a whole thread where someone is looking for help. Stop telling people they are failures, their tanks are failures, everything will die if you don’t do this now. Post your idea, or recommendation, in a polite way and leave room for other ideas and recommendations.

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

I agree; it is absolute relentless how that thread gets forcibly injected everywhere, and any sort of questioning of it or disagreement with it gets taken as a personal insult. Seems like more interest in getting attention to his thread than anything else.

So true! They’re everywhere, I actually thought……and still do, that they have a bot that looks for trigger words and automatically starts playing the rip clean soundtrack over and over.

 

[BirdFish5000]

On another forum, I asked for advice on moving an established SPS reef. Give you a wild guess as to what thread got referenced, lol.

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

I am not Randy, so if you only want his take, please ignore this post.

Terms like '1000%' and 'known facts' (not in this post but was used in the linked thread' are problematic when they are not true. It makes it hard to take any of the post seriously even if there may be good info in there. The first response in that thread says "Folks have just rinsed it with tap water for many years then drain it out." so the 1000% thing seems inflated.

I don't think the 'work threads' I have seen are compelling evidence, and some of the very specific actions suggested in such threads seem to me like make work with uneccessary and scare tactic caveats.


Scientist or science? The length of time an idea exists is not necessarily good supporting evidence for the acceptance of the idea. Why should we take the 'nine year proof work thread' as compelling evidence?

It depends on how well the 'change in the hobby' idea is supported. 100 page threads are not great evidence, while condensing those 100 page threads into an understandable write up, with supporting documentation, may be. This is what talks and articles and journal publications are for. If you say something like "1000%" or "known facts" you are immediately going to be asked to support those statements, and if that support can't be provided, or, as in this case, they seem incorrect at the outset, it is going to be a hard sell to get folks to read the rest of your ideas.

There are no ironclad science rules, that is antithetical to science. Everything in science can change if the evidence is compelling - generating evidence sufficient to change long standing and tested ides is going to be, and is supposed to be difficult. People who tend to fight against 'science' often are fighting straw men, and not anything actually science based.
Do you really have massive data sets that aren't threads? That would be really interesting to look over.

Of course. New information changes previous conclusions all the time. The level of compelling of evidence may be high, but it certainly happens.

I reject idea that 'science' says that rinsing with tap water is bad and think this is a tilting at windmills. There may be concerns about rinsing with tap, but they are generally overcome by a final rinse in 'treated' freshwater or tank water.
It isn't about proof, it is about compelling evidence presented in a way that can get people to change their minds. Please don't mistake disagreement with ignoring - that is a dangerous, unhealthy, and unhelpful direction to go. 150 page threads are impossible to digest, and have often turned out to be unsupported. Arrange your evidence in a digestable way for people to look over, state the problem, show the problem is real, then state how the problem is fixed, and how, and why, with support, and you then have something worth people looking at - they may not agree after reading it, but at least you have given them a way to understand what you are talking about without having to wade through 100's of pages of threads.

This is for almost all of reekeeping, and every topic. People still insist on using fish to cycle new tanks. People still insist that high phosphate is a death sentence for animals. People still insist that popping bubble algae releases spores from inside the bubble. Those are 'bad' ideas, yet if you were to look at the massive amount of threads supporting as evidence of their 'truth' you would be forced to think they are true. Lots of folks think lots of things that just aren't supported.

Forums are only as good as those that post, and they are not the end all of reefkeeping knowledge. Many folks who don't post on forums much anymore collectively shake their heads at some of the advice folks given every day on forums.

It isn't about like, and science is a method rather than an entity. Changing 'accepted science' is supposed to, and needs to have a high bar. If it didn't, we would all be running eco aqualizers, reef vital dna, and sea lab 28. Anything in science can change given compelling evidence, but many people take disagreement as gatekeeping when it isn't.

My MACNA talk this year makes what I think is a compelling case for why trying to lower nutrients is an empty and harmful idea. I spent a lot of time putting it together and looking at a lot of reference material, so folks would understand what I am saying - yet I still know that I might be wrong and look forward to folks reaction so we can all try to move forward together. That seems like science to me.

 

[brandon429]

Birdfish

its interesting how all flaming of the process comes from folks outside the work thread, all the hate.

within the work thread, jobs getting done completely, we all get along and there's no flaming. interesting dynamic in my opinion


here, on this thread, folks offer up ways to get socially accepted when making posts, where outcomes are on the line and not shaped by me in work threads we get along fine and no semantics tuning required. where evaluations go there's a problem, where work is done, not a problem.


in our 34 page running how to unstick any cycle thread, it's complete bliss. anyone who owns a seneye can spot check our procedure, no fails, and 100% of entrants who don't own a seneye never have their fish die from our cycles, in fact they can post pics of fully stocked tanks on the stated close cycle date for pages.

this is an interesting dichotomy, how folks outside the work threads have the most critique. work threads run on pure evaluation from the entrant, that really helps to streamline biases in my opinion. we can just keep pumping out completed cycles without testing and any sandbed job on the planet someone wants to run, they can enter the thread above and get that.

 

[BirdFish5000]

...okay? Why are you addressing that diatribe to me?

 

[brandon429]

My mistake, I thought you were rational among the pitchforkers.

When you offered unsolicited feedback I figured you were in the discussion. We can hit block and call it a day for future prevention.

 

[BirdFish5000]

Also, can you point out exactly, with quotes, where your thread has been getting 'flamed' and 'hated'? I see none of that. Just disagreement and questioning.

 

[BirdFish5000]

My mistake, I thought you were rational among the pitchforkers.

When you offered unsolicited feedback I figured you were in the discussion. We can hit block and call it a day for future prevention.

....huh? Not sure why you're insulting me.

And what are you talking about unsolicited feedback? It's an open discussion on an open forum. That implicitly means that feedback is going to occur.

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

Randy

Are you guilty of the inverse to this thread?


There's a rinse sand post/ should I rinse new sand in tap/ thread out in the new forum

Those are controversial

Should I wash my sand before adding it into my tank?

I just got dry sand (not live) and I'm not sure if I should wash it or not. I've seen some people wash it, but I've also seen people that don't wash it. If I do need to wash it, what is the process of washing it? Also, should I wash it in just tap water or would I have to wash it in salt water?

www.reef2reef.com

1000% of people who do not make work threads using *other people's reefs vs their own* will tell this poster rinsing in tap is bad, and has consequences compared to not rinsing in tap water. i don't feel like I'm making up things to state you'd advise against it

So what if rules a scientist states don't line up one iota with a nine year proof work thread? At what point is stated science fact preventing ideal procedural change in the hobby? How can ironclad science rules ever evolve, if folks comment to pre rinse questions purposefully omitting massive data sets that run opposite to their science?

Can science ever be wrong in a matter? If I take the tap sand rinse thread out to 150 pages of perfect outcome will it eventually replace the notion that tap rinsing is bad? Can any new finding alter that claim, or does it get to stick as a base rule claim forever, no matter how much proof we make to the contrary?


It astonishes me when posters are given advice in the matter to the opposite of massive work threads and if I didn't hop into the discussion to show it to them they'd never see it

It seems like science tries to gatekeep and stop change it doesn't like by deeming anything contrary as anecdotal and not accurate. If I had only 3 bad outcomes in that sand rinse thread of 51 pgs I would shut the thread down/ request it deleted. Many years plus 51 pages plus reefs from every walk of life totally happy with tap rinsing means something to science

What is your point???
Quit trying to hijack threads to further your own delusional propaganda.

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

LOL, in a rant to Randy? funny

My thoughts exactly!

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

Any arguing with reef sages leads to a ban eventually (for me lol)

Promise??? Sooner than later I hope

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

Promise??? Sooner than later I hope

 

[Garf]

in our 34 page running how to unstick any cycle thread, it's complete bliss

How to unstick any seemingly stuck cycle

Thanks for posting! What’s your feed source for the bac can you post a tank pic so we can look for any growth pigments on sand or rock / little signals Thanks for posting! What’s your feed source for the bac can you post a tank pic so we can look for any growth pigments on sand or rock /...

www.reef2reef.com

You telling porkies Brandon? Careful with your answer, you know I’ll fact check ya. You ignore folks who don’t comply with your confirmation bias threads, as far as I can tell.

 

[Sisterlimonpot]

I'm going to be completely ignorant here and ask, what's a work thread? I've never heard the term.

From what I gather,it seems to me like an echo chamber that excludes polar thoughts and ideas?

 

[brandon429]

I will post some, and you can see a work thread is hundreds of reefers showing up for help on a given subject matter. we do the same repeating action for every entrant in the thread.

Official Sand Rinse and Tank Transfer thread

If you are reading this thread to cure a tank invasion from a link I sent you, we do not need to identify your type of invasion here we do not need you to test anything at anytime regarding nitrate, phosphate etc Above all, we do not need to see a microscope slide picture of your invasion at...

www.reef2reef.com

the sand rinse thread above is one, clicking that defines what a work thread is for the subject matter of: how do I handle reef sand and make it come out perfect, every time, across all reefs. There is no work thread online other than that one for how to transfer reefs correctly without cycling. Notice in the 51 pages: I never ask for nor get ammonia tests. we don't live in fear of undoing a cycle, because that doesn't happen in reefing unless you own a non digital ammonia test kit which lie a lot. In Dan or Taricha's or Randy's hands, they dont lie. In res publica's hands, they lie, and readers like to report in nh4 vs nh3 so any reading above zero ammonia has them trained unfairly to buy more bacteria

so we needed a way to keep the masses from getting shilled into constantly buying repeat bottles of bacteria, enter the cycling work thread.


old cycling science tricks the masses, the buyers walking around a reef convention.

we can do complete tank overhauls and NEVER recycle anyone's tank, or lose their ten grand in SPS even though every job on that thread is someone *tap water rinsing* their reef tank. with tap water, the thing Randy says not to do.

old cycling science would NEVER agree you can tap rinse 300 reef tanks and not recycle them, but that's the difference between old and new cycling science.


segues into another work thread, this is 33 pages below on the proof that reef tank cycles do not stall. macna speakers told us they stall

Testless reef cycling. the sages hate it, would say I'm making up things, but here you have 33 pages of cycles where nobody's fish die, ever, nor corals, and we dont use any testing for ammonia and nitrite to cycle any tank. I / anyone who ascribes to updated cycling science likely to never be spoken from a speech podium, can tell any reefer the end date for their cycle before the tank is ever built. if I know what arrangement you are going to set up, I can tell you the exact date it will be ready to carry life by. much like reef conventions who dont use open-ended wait cycles/ all entrants for dry start tank example setups and the multiple live rock transfer tanks carrying fifty thousand dollars in bounce mushrooms get started on a given Friday, and the cycles do NOT expire they're permanent. Old cycling science is use api and wait 30 + days, open-ended, until a cheap test kit says zero then you're safe (to skip all disease preps, old cycling science never relays disease risks)

but new cycling science is breaking away from that frame of reference that has everybody seeing their cycle as stuck/I must buy more ammonia (as told from a podium at macna the vids are on youtube)

new cycling science knows that sellers can control their cycles perfectly, on a closed ended date pre-planned

In this thread below if you've arranged any common cycling approach, you're able to add fish on day ten or later. That's what we have been testing three years

My first thread at this technique was 30 days, we've been able to carve it down to ten days max wait since the advent of seneye allowing us to know the true control dates for marine tank cycles.

in this thread below, we produce running reef tanks anyone can click and send a message to these entrants and see if their tank is good or bad. you'll get 100% it worked, feel free to audit any entrant. Nobody has stuck reef tank cycles after day ten wait from any common variance in reef cycling, thats a sales gimmick. if I'm wrong on that claim, expect dead tanks soon and someone drumming me out of town vs saying thank you for cycling my reef opposite of what the sales podium told me in the macna video.

How to unstick any seemingly stuck cycle

non digital ammonia test kit readings (api, Red Sea, nyos, seachem badges) make you think you aren’t cycled when indeed you are if you owned a $200 expensive seneye meter, you’d never be doubting your cycle status. since .01% of the reefing population owns these, we need a way to help the...

www.reef2reef.com

SLP, I thank you for not joining the pile-on, I won't forget that man. gracias.

I also have work threads for pico reefing, peroxide use etc. they look exactly like these above.

Reef2Reef Pest algae challenge thread hydrogen peroxide

What you are really in for: Hand cleaning, hard work siphon and rasp-removing of accumulations and invasions outside the tank and doing massive water changes is 90% of this thread, peroxide is 10%. We almost never dose peroxide into the tank water, this is a you-work-physically-hard as catch-up...

www.reef2reef.com

in that is sub-linked to reefcentral and nano-reef.com about 200 combined pages of solely peroxide work

you will never see me asking anyone in reefing for an ammonia measurement, we're that controlled over cycling. Cycles don't get undone in reefing.

A work thread isn't just brainstorming, it's actions that will kill a reef if bad science is present

When good science is present, nobody's tank crashes for ten years across subjects.

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

Hey, I think we have a winner for the who relies on personal experience to reject truth contest! Look, I know I’m a jerk. I’d love a jerk badge under my name. This could be the perfect answer to whatever problem, but I will never, ever, ever read this thread solely based on the attitude of the presenter.

 

[MoshJosh]

I have tried to skim through this. . . it's a lot haha but what comes to my mind is. . .

(when it comes to reef keeping) There is more than one way to skin a cat. . .

Unfortunately sciences is hard (especially when our "laboratory" is a glass box in the living room), facts are illusive, and success and results don't always equate to "the right answer" or "the truth". . .

That said, as human beings, our successes and failures will skew our perception when faced with opposing ideas or actual facts (even quantifiable facts produced in a lab).

and bleeeeeeehhhhhh