PDA

View Full Version : How good are the answers from WetWebMedia ???


FourWindsDealer
01/26/2009, 11:21 PM
Tons and TONS of info there..........

But is it any good ????????

Are the answers pretty much definitive, or biased towards certain ways of thought ???????

Peter Eichler
01/26/2009, 11:29 PM
Hardly definitive (few things in this hobby are) and it can depend on who's doing the answering. However, there are some very well respected people answering questions there and in most cases the info is pretty reliable. There's certainly far less bad information to sift through there than there is on an open forum such as this.

theborgtank
01/27/2009, 12:55 AM
gotta respect it, a lot of good work has been put into that site. one way or another if you want to keep learning about this hobby you will find yourself there from time to time

snorvich
01/27/2009, 05:19 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14251716#post14251716 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Peter Eichler
Hardly definitive (few things in this hobby are) and it can depend on who's doing the answering. However, there are some very well respected people answering questions there and in most cases the info is pretty reliable. There's certainly far less bad information to sift through there than there is on an open forum such as this.

That is my view as well. I see lots of bad information here. So far I have not seen bad information there but I don't read that forum often.

Amoore311
01/27/2009, 07:20 AM
I use each site to cross check each other sometimes lol.

I don't like WetWebMedia for Equipment advice though. The lighting/filtration forum here is far superior.

SDguy
01/27/2009, 08:46 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14251672#post14251672 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by FourWindsDealer
Tons and TONS of info there..........

But is it any good ????????

Are the answers pretty much definitive, or biased towards certain ways of thought ???????

Are you talking about their relatievly new forum, or their Daily Questions? I haven't used their forums, but their question answers are quite good. Fenner are relatively down to earth and realistic fellow.

crvz
01/27/2009, 09:13 AM
My thoughts are that the responses to daily questions are somewhat conservative, but rather trustworthy. A good source that I go to often, but I've yet to see their forum.

BigJay
01/27/2009, 09:23 AM
WetWebMedia has superior advice for the husbandry of a particular kind of animal. It's extremely conservative advice though, and expect a good case of guilt if you don't do things like quarantine or proper acclimation.

Reefcentral is far better for things like water chemistry (Randy and Boomer!) and the latest in reefkeeping equipment.

returnofsid
01/27/2009, 10:42 AM
Guilt from WWM is FAR LESS than most get here...lol.

WWM is a very useful tool. I go there often for research. They seem to also have information that is hard to find anywhere else. From the vast quantity of information, to the exceptional quality of the information, I find it one of the best sites for research. One other point...if you do submit a question, through email, they're very quick to answer. I've yet to ask a question that wasn't answered within a day.

jbird69
01/27/2009, 10:58 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14253626#post14253626 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BigJay
WetWebMedia has superior advice for the husbandry of a particular kind of animal. It's extremely conservative advice though, and expect a good case of guilt if you don't do things like quarantine or proper acclimation.

Reefcentral is far better for things like water chemistry (Randy and Boomer!) and the latest in reefkeeping equipment.

Their seems to be a plethora of knowledge at WWM, and I have studied quite a bit of the Q&As over there. but from what I have seen, the overarching tone is quite condescending.

BigJay
01/27/2009, 12:10 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14254376#post14254376 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jbird69
Their seems to be a plethora of knowledge at WWM, and I have studied quite a bit of the Q&As over there. but from what I have seen, the overarching tone is quite condescending.

I understand what you're saying, but I believe that it's an unintended consequence of their philosophy and most of the questions asked. I'd say a majority of the problems that these guys solve aren't just due to improper quarantine. In most cases it's a complete lack of research into the animals that people purchase.

Seriously, it shouldn't take more than a 10 second google search and three sentence read to figure out say, how big a panther grouper gets, and why they won't make good companions for your 1" clown fish. I can sympathize with WetWebMedia when they get a little frustrated every time someone asks them "I added a new Panther Grouper yesterday and my clownfish is gone! Did it jump out?"

Edit: If you don't believe that they get these kind of questions, then you've never worked with the public before. :lol:

redfishsc
01/27/2009, 12:58 PM
They take a firm stand on taking GOOOOOD care of our animals.

For that I give them two thumbs up!

atnixon
01/29/2009, 04:26 PM
Thanks for the nice / kind words folks....

Jeff
01/29/2009, 04:33 PM
I dont like the format. It's hard to read IMO.

billdogg
01/29/2009, 04:36 PM
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... lets see.........pointed advice from people who are, and in most cases have been for many years, professionals in the field,

or.......(not that there is not a lot of good stuff here as well - i'm looking every day lol) advice from people who are in many cases beginners.....hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I check both sites - and usually go with what the folks at WWM have to say


JMO

pagojoe
01/29/2009, 04:44 PM
No offense to the WWM crowd, but the mollusc ID section (which is the only section I'm qualified to critique) sucks, regardless who answers it. I tried for years to e-mail in corrections, with references attached, and never got an answer and none of the info was ever corrected. That's the major reason I ended up at Reef Central. I'm trying to correct bad info one post at a time, and give ID's that are accurate enough to allow a reefer to make good decisions about what to do with their hitchhikers or new snaily inhabitants. I can't really say I blame anyone for it, since I'd be just as clueless trying to give advice about corals or reef chemistry, but I would attempt to correct bad info I'd disseminated if it were pointed out to me.

Cheers,



Don

discusone
01/29/2009, 05:35 PM
How about this.---You can read a hundred books,visit a dozen websites,talk to fifity people at your LFC,but until you do it yourself,it is all speculation.You,and your tank, are the best source of info.The books,websites are good for the intial plunge,but time-n -grade,( for you military types),is the best advise you can get.
A person can read a hundred books,or visit a website about "glassblowing",but until you do it over and over,you will never learn,or get the hang of it.
Nobody can read a book,visit a website,and become a successful ,or well rewarded, fishkeeper/reefer,either freshwater or saltwater until you live it for alwhile.

WWM,or RC,can point you in the right direction,but you need to take a road that goes to success and satisfaction on your own.

You need to live the dream and the nightmare on your own.

All the so called,"experts", started out by pulling dead and dieing fish out of their tanks at the beginning.

InsaneClownFish
01/29/2009, 08:53 PM
It's an excellent source, a useful tool, and has a wealth of invaluable information.

That being said you will stumble across a minor contradiction here or there. As others here have intimated, the question and answer section is difficult to read, navigate, and always looks messy to me.

The bottom line is you will see a lot of fact based information there, while here on RC you will see a lot of opinions mixed with the facts.

Lordhelmet
01/29/2009, 09:04 PM
I've never been to WWM, but one of our club founders is a staff memeber there. And knowing his level of knowledge I would say it is a great place for info.

pagojoe
01/29/2009, 09:42 PM
OK, I went to WWM for the first time in two years, and have to admit things have improved. I went through EVERY SINGLE MESSAGE on the snail pages 1 through 17, and counted errors. Lumping the messages that referred to the same thing, 70 appeared to be completely correct, 50 were completely or significantly incorrect, and 83 were not applicable to ID or couldn't tell because of no photo/impossibly blurry photo or weren't mollusc-related.

That's 24.6% of the total that had significant errors. If you discount the last group of "does not apply" posts, 41.6% of the ID posts were in error or had no ID even with good pics. The good news is that the guys there appear to be learning, and have recruited some better snail people. In the last couple of years, only a few of the ID responses had glaring errors, over 90% correct I'd guess. So...I'd better change my evaluation of the current mollusc ID situation at WWM from "they suck" to "not bad."

Cheers,



Don

M.Maddox
01/30/2009, 12:36 AM
Thanks for the kind words, guys. Us volunteers have put a lot of years into the site, and we hope it helps. :)

TellyFish
01/30/2009, 01:13 AM
Bob Fenner of WWM is a great resource for fish info due to his many years in the ornamental trade. Also, as a beginner, I relied on his book "The Conscientious Marine Aquarist" for the setup. For species and husbandry care in a searchable and easy to access format: I don't think WWM can be beat.

Toddrtrex
01/30/2009, 01:34 AM
My personal experiences have been different they what is written there -- mainly with Haddoni anemones. There is a picture (( http://www.wetwebmedia.com/carpetanemones.htm )) about half way down of a green Haddoni (( from Germany )) that they say is dyed. Well, it is the exact same color of mine (( which I have had for over a year )), and I know for sure that mine isn't dyed. I also disagree about the recommended flow for Haddonis. Most of the info that I don't agree with errs on the side of caution, and won't cause any harm. However (( again IME )), high flow is not good for Haddonis.

MileHighFish
01/30/2009, 02:00 AM
Tap water is 40 ppm here im on a well..

MileHighFish
01/30/2009, 02:02 AM
sorry wrong thread... lol

Linnie
01/30/2009, 01:06 PM
"In the last couple of years, only a few of the ID responses had glaring errors, over 90% correct I'd guess. So...I'd better change my evaluation of the current mollusc ID situation at WWM from "they suck" to "not bad."

LOL Don, as one of the crewmembers that answers those ID related queries, thank you...I think! I've been with the crew since April of '07 and would like to ask that if you see any errors (and obviously you have), please email me through the crew mail address: [email protected] and I will do what I can to see that they get taken care of. It's important that the information we have there is correct so please, bring it on!

I also want to say thanks for the kind words said here, we really do appreciate it. :)

Thanks again,

-Lynn (Zurik)

pagojoe
01/30/2009, 01:36 PM
K, will do Lynn. I saw the improvement immediately when you arrived ;)

Cheers,



Don

Linnie
01/30/2009, 02:07 PM
Awww, thanks Don. I'm certainly not above getting things wrong, that's for sure! What's helped me is that I started to collect, and ID/catalog shells when I was just a little kid - and believe me, that was a lonnng time ago! I love the ID queries - crabs, shrimp, you name it but my first love has always been the molluscs. Only thing is, sometimes it's darn near impossible to solve with the information supplied. I'm sure you know how that goes. Isn't it great though to see the number of odd and wonderful little creatures that hitchhike into people's tanks - including our own! Thanks in advance, for your help. I look forward to hearing from you. :)

-Lynn

Elysia
01/30/2009, 02:10 PM
I will check WWM when I have a question. I agree w/ others that the FAQs format is not the most user-friendly approach when it gets to be 5 to 15 pages (or more) long.

I know no organization is perfect, but what gets me is when the stuff on WWM doesn't match what is printed in Calfo's and Fenner's books -- for example, sometimes the same image will be used on both, but will be identified as two different animals. I believe that one of the images of Gomophia watsoni in Reef invertebrates is identified as another star on WWM (it was something I noticed over a year ago, so that may be the incorrect example.)