Betta Fish Care  
Go Back   Betta Fish and Betta Fish Care > Betta Fish Compatibility
Check out the eBook Betta Fish Care Made Easy
betta fish
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-14-2010, 12:59 PM   #11 
yhbae
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Correct - for this release, I did not look into the case when the user didn't select any filter. For 99.9% of the species, you need filters so I didn't really think about this case very hard before.

As for the stocking level, it all depends on the footprint of your tank. 3g tall tank doesn't have as much bioload room compare to 3g long.
yhbae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 01:13 PM   #12 
1fish2fish
Member
 
1fish2fish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Savannah, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by yhbae View Post
Correct - for this release, I did not look into the case when the user didn't select any filter. For 99.9% of the species, you need filters so I didn't really think about this case very hard before.

As for the stocking level, it all depends on the footprint of your tank. 3g tall tank doesn't have as much bioload room compare to 3g long.
Thats why I posted this. I see so many people on here that say.. I have a 12 gallon hex and I want to put this, this, and this in there.. and I just think poor fish are going to be constantly bumping heads. People don't realize that its not the gallons its the horizontal space that determines your stocking level.
1fish2fish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 09:01 PM   #13 
Grant83
New Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Yeah, my three gallon eclipse system 3 (has a filter) is 115% with just a betta... a very happy betta :)
Grant83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 09:03 PM   #14 
yhbae
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grant83 View Post
Yeah, my three gallon eclipse system 3 (has a filter) is 115% with just a betta... a very happy betta :)
Yeah, Eclipse 3g is a relatively tall tank compare to the standard 2.5g tank hence footprint-wise I don't think it gives you any more than 2.5g.
yhbae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2010, 02:56 PM   #15 
yhbae
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Hi guys,

I'm sure some of you are aware already, but I have been continuing with my weekly releases for AqAdvisor.

To those who are not familiar, this is the release note that went out yesterday:

What's new for 2010 04 18 build:

- Added Ctenochromis horei.
- Added Achara Catfish/Marbled Pim (Leiarius marmoratus).
- Added False Julii Cory (Corydoras trilineatus).
- Added Mono Sebae (Monodactylus sebae).
- Added Telmatochromis dhonti.
- Minimum tank size requirement for Neolamprologus Similis has been increased to 20x10.
- Marked all Otocinclus species as being compatible with Dwarf Puffer.
- Minimum tank size requirement for Flag Tetra has been increased to 20x10.
- Reassigned Rubberlip pleco as an alias to Rubbernose Pleco.
- Minimum tank size requirement for Otocinclus cocama has been increased to 20x10.
- Minimum tank size requirement for Von Rio Tetra has been increased to 20x10.
- Minimum tank size requirement for Neolamprologus Multifasciatus has been increased to 20x10.
- Minimum tank size requirement for Head and Tail Light Tetra has been increased to 20x10.
- Minimum tank size requirement for Hatchet has been increased to 20x10.
- Minimum tank size requirement for Harlequin Rasbora has been increased to 20x10.
- Minimum tank size requirement for Flame Tetra has been increased to 20x10.
- Minimum tank size requirement for Dwarf Pencilfish has been increased to 20x10.
- Minimum tank size requirement for Black Neon Tetra has been increased to 20x10.
- Minimum tank size requirement for Red Phantom Tetra has been increased to 20x10.
- Minimum tank size requirement for Neon Tetra has been increased to 20x10.
- Minimum tank size requirement for Mosquito Rasbora has been increased to 20x10.
- Minimum tank size requirement for Golden Dwarf Barb has been increased to 20x10.
- Minimum tank size requirement for Rasbora rubrodorsalis has been increased to 20x10.
- Minimum tank size requirement for Swift Rasbora has been increased to 20x10.
- Minimum tank size requirement for Panda Tetra has been increased to 20x10.
- Minimum tank size requirement for Emerald Eye Rasbora has been increased to 20x10.
- Minimum tank size requirement for Yasuhikotakia sidthimunki has been increased to 20x10.
- Minimum tank size requirement for Endler has been increased to 20x10.
- Minimum tank size requirement for Pygmy Cory has been increased to 20x10.
- Minimum tank size requirement for Dwarf Cory has been increased to 20x10.
- Minimum tank size requirement for Green Neon Tetra has been increased to 20x10.
- Minimum tank size requirement for Espei Rasbora has been increased to 20x10.
- Minimum tank size requirement for Ember Tetra has been increased to 20x10.
- Minimum tank size requirement for Dwarf Rasbora has been increased to 20x10.
- Minimum tank size requirement for Celestial Pearl Danio has been increased to 20x10.
- Minimum tank size requirement for Nana Rasbora has been increased to 20x10.
- Minimum tank size requirement for Microrasbora kubotai has been increased to 20x10.
- Minimum tank size requirement for Honey Blue Eye has been increased to 20x10.
- Minimum tank size requirement for Danio erythromicron has been increased to 20x10.
- Minimum tank size requirement for Dwarf Livebearer has been increased to 20x10.

- Fixed a bug: When only 1 kind of species are selected, territorial space calculation was not being reported correctly, hence did not report a warning when too many of the same species were present by themselves. This has been fixed.

- Added Hydor Prime 10/30 filters.
- Added All Pond Solutions EF series filters.
- Added Hagen Fluval G3/G6 filters.

- Total number of filters in DB has been increased to 303.
- Total number of tanks in DB has been increased to 83.
- Total number of species in DB has been increased to 869.

To access the application, please click on AqAdvisor site.

If you have any species that are missing in AqAdvisor DB, please let me know!!!

I have been working hard on the salt water version of AqAdvisor. Initially, it will be somewhat simple and will only feature few species at a time. Hopefully with some help, saltwater species DB will grow as well. I am hoping that the early version will see its light starting next Sunday! I'd like to focus on few species at a time and get the accuracy nailed earlier on. I will continue to develop the freshwater version though - features like support for plants and sumps are still planned.

As usual, if you have any suggestions or found some results that you don't agree with, please let me know! :D
yhbae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2010, 11:29 AM   #16 
Mister Sparkle
Member
 
Mister Sparkle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
aqadvisor, in my opinion, is a very one-dimensional application. It basically has about the same accuracy as silly rules like "one inch per gallon," but it pretends to provide a complicated calculation. Finally, the effect for filtration seems to be amplified far beyond reason and there don't seem to be as many options for other types of filtration (sponge, for example) as there ought to be. Why the calculator is "frozen" on a once-weekly water change schedule is beyond me, and why this isn't provided as a variable is puzzling. The amount of work someone wants to put into their aquarium is one of the utmost "inputs" to determining the stocking capacity of their aquarium.

BTW...your "minimum tank sizes" happen to disagree with some highly reputable and renowned authors! Not to mention, some of the best fishkeepers in the world as well! I would go so far as to classify the "minimums" on your calculator as capricious and random, at best.

Your calculator should present the reality of the situation, such as the range of capacities and the different variables for each equation. For example, it should present a calculation for allowable fish under a given water surface area which takes into account various methods of improved oxygenation, with a SECOND calculated estimate of maximum biological filtration capacity, and a statement that the "calculations" are designed to be SUPER conservative.

In essence, for a "capacity calculator" to be anywhere near as authoritative and precise as yours pretends to be, its answers would have to be a lot less specific. Specificity and fishkeeping are pretty much at odds with one another.
Mister Sparkle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2010, 12:08 PM   #17 
yhbae
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Before responding to your feedback, I want to say that I do appreciate all feedback, so please don't take this the wrong way. I am going to see if I can learn anything from this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Sparkle View Post
aqadvisor, in my opinion, is a very one-dimensional application. It basically has about the same accuracy as silly rules like "one inch per gallon," but it pretends to provide a complicated calculation.
I can comfortably tell you this is incorrect. One inch per gallon is something I can implement in 5 mins. Its one formula calculation. It doesn't require hundreds of formula and on top of that a large DB to handle all the exception cases. I am curious why are you under this impression?

Quote:
Finally, the effect for filtration seems to be amplified far beyond reason and there don't seem to be as many options for other types of filtration (sponge, for example) as there ought to be.
Actually some of them on the list are sponge filters. :) The list in the app contains power filters, canisters and sponge filters. I will be looking at sumps in the future but that's another story. When you say "amplified far beyond reason", are you saying it is too generous or too stingy when it comes to filtration capacity?

Quote:
Why the calculator is "frozen" on a once-weekly water change schedule is beyond me, and why this isn't provided as a variable is puzzling.
That's actually a good suggestion. Someone else also suggested something of a similar nature, coming from a different angle - some species like smaller water changes more frequently.

The reason it has only one weekly change routine (which actually splits into two if it reaches to certain % level hence I sort-of tried to handle this concern in an easier way) is because the calculator (just like 99% of the software in the world) is a work-in-progress. When was the last time you used a software that didn't feature a new version with more features? Do you remember Windows 1.0? How about Word Perfect 1.0? Lotus 123 v1.0? Think of this the same way. It is impossible to add all features everyone want in the world in v1.0. As I mentioned, this is a good feature to add eventually. :)

Quote:
The amount of work someone wants to put into their aquarium is one of the utmost "inputs" to determining the stocking capacity of their aquarium.
Yes, but amount of work will not overcome certain restrictions that people should know before implementing the plan. No matter how much work you do, you can't raise a clown loach in a 10g. No matter what you do, you can't raise Frontosa with smaller mbuna species. Common pleco in a 15g tank? There are many many examples like this, but unfortunately many new fish keepers still start off this way without receiving any warnings from anyone. Obviously, AqAdvisor will report these warnings.

And as I mention constantly, if you do your maintenance, over 100% is perfectly fine. My mbuna tank is 130% as per AqAdvisor.

Quote:
BTW...your "minimum tank sizes" happen to disagree with some highly reputable and renowned authors! Not to mention, some of the best fishkeepers in the world as well! I would go so far as to classify the "minimums" on your calculator as capricious and random, at best.
Then you are saying all profile sites on the net and suggestions on the forum are random at best. Also keep in mind that significant amount of info used in AqAdvisor comes from everyday forum posts, recommended by experienced keepers. I started off with data in those sites, then I "fine tune" them. When I say this, that means someone with experience comes along and give me a data that may not match what's on the net but are indeed true. I can count hundreds of cases like this already. I am going to admit that in some cases, this information simply isn't there. In those cases, I take similar species and use their data.

Also, please give me examples of when it reports it wrong. At least I have a chance to fix them if they are indeed true. Your claim is rather general.

Quote:
Your calculator should present the reality of the situation, such as the range of capacities and the different variables for each equation. For example, it should present a calculation for allowable fish under a given water surface area which takes into account various methods of improved oxygenation,
It does work on the surface area level. But you are correct, I don't provide a way to improve oxygen levels. I am reluctant because if they artificially increase the oxygen levels and loose power for an hour or two, you could be looking at a disaster in your hand. I can always provide this as an option, but I really don't want people to add more fish by just adding an airstone. This is my opinion obviously.

Quote:
with a SECOND calculated estimate of maximum biological filtration capacity, and a statement that the "calculations" are designed to be SUPER conservative.
Actually it is NOT super conservative. Why am I getting feedback on both sides that it is too conservative and too aggressive on similar setups from different sources? That's because people's perception on "working stocking level" is a range. Yours obviously is more on the aggressive side than others. I admit I am little more on the conservative side but not at extreme levels. I can assure you, I get many "complaints" that the app is too aggressive as well.

Quote:
In essence, for a "capacity calculator" to be anywhere near as authoritative and precise as yours pretends to be, its answers would have to be a lot less specific. Specificity and fishkeeping are pretty much at odds with one another.
I respectfully disagree with you. As I mentioned, a working stocking level is a range. I happen to select one line within that range. Others with their own lines within this range will claim AqAdvisor is wrong because it does not match their lines. I'm sure both lines will work ok with appropriate amount of maintenance.

It is easy to say that since you saw an example where it din't report the correct answer, hence the app is garbage. But what about the other 90% of the time when it is correct? Also, this % is improving since the knowledge DB is not standing still. Personally when I started this hobby 8 years ago, if someone was building a project such as this, I would gladly help out. Once again, this is my own opinion, of course.
yhbae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2010, 02:01 PM   #18 
Mister Sparkle
Member
 
Mister Sparkle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Alright...let me come right out and apologize for emoting on you a bit. You didn't deserve that. Your calculator is free, and your intent is to help people (mostly newbies). It was wrong of me to come at you like you're peddling snake oil. In fact, the source of my frustration is really with the people who are treating your application as though it is the newest "scripture" in fishkeeping.

Now, in terms of the comment regarding filtration...what I meant was that you list a specific type of sponge filter and don't really have an option for selecting it by surface area of the sponge. In essence, this is the part that matters in a sponge, which is a very basic implement. Many of us use homemade sponge filters and the "hydro" filters aren't very forthcoming about some of their basic specs. However, if you have some "typical" dimensions available for generic sponges, it can usefully calculate filtration for us! I have a HUGE sponge that Hydro WISHES it could match with their biggest filter, with about as much surface area (thanks to the design) as 2 of their biggest models (rated for 125-gallon aquariums) put together. I use it in smaller aquariums, and I can tell you right now that their listed "flow rates" are complete puffery! But the gph on a sponge filter is actually less important than it would be on an external, canister, or even an internal filter. The kind of flow rate Hydro advertises would make a sponge filter completely unacceptable for the typical use of a sponge! What matters most is surface area for biological filtration.

Yes, I would really appreciate if the calculator could treat water changing as a variable. I can see why it is a usable outcome, but maybe if I can plug in to the calculator that my schedule is to provide 3 or 4 water changes per week, it can give me a "minimum" amount of water to change each time. Ideally, if I provide a frequency AND amount for water change regimen, it would calculate into the final capacity as a similar function of filtration/bioload reduction/oxygenation, and might even make recommendations in terms of greater volume changed etc. However, I do realize that this would be an EXTREMELY complicated function (which becomes somewhat self-dependent in its own right, perhaps only capable of resulting in the dreaded ol' "E" from our calculators of yesterday!) and would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to implement. Perhaps a sort-of "canned statement" added to the calculator to the effect that 'more frequent/voluminous water changes can have a significant effect on the calculations' would be about all one could really expect.

One immediate example of a species whose "minimums" aren't quite correct is the swordtails. Granted, the consensus on the net is actually wrong about this as well, based on a misquoted early "rule" that you wanted to keep swordtails in groups of at least TEN (a rule that has since been roundly debunked, though the capacity needed for 10 swords lives on!). But I'll go ahead and cite Kathleen Wood, a successul keeper and author, who has demonstrated success in care, long-term housing, community inclusion, and breeding of swordtails in standard-dimension aquariums HALF the size your site lists as the "minimum" for a breeding trio. She has even recommended them to newbies as a good use of 10-gallon aquariums, and I haven't heard about any complaints that it was creating failure. Some sites (fishlore.com) do reflect this as a "more correct" minimum. One reason that the minimum size of an aquarium for a swordtail is often greatly overstated is the effect that their tail has on the overall length of the fish. Up to half of a swordtail is tail! I know Kathleen's been successful with them in 10 gallons for a great deal of time. I've experienced a lot of success with them in a 15-gallon standard, and I just recently became aware that even Sea World regularly keeps them in a 15 gallon (why Sea World is keeping swordtails, I don't know, but I digress)! This is just the example I can most readily recall, as I've played with various mixtures of fish in your calculator since it was brought up to me as the "best thing since sliced bread". Again, my frustration is more with the fact that people treat it as definitive rather than as the "guide" that you clearly intended it to be. In terms of the guidance you provide, however, I would place printed publication in a higher position of authority than the internet. A web page doesn't usually check an author's resume as closely as a well-respected publisher might...for example, aqua-fish.net suggests that swordtails require 200 liters (that's 53 gallons!!!!!!) of aquarium for a quartet. Equally disturbing is that the range for maximum TL among web sites ranges from 2-5 inches...that's a 150% margin for error!

That's actually a pretty good reason for remaining reluctant to calculate for oxygenation. Perhaps, again, a mere "canned answer" that oxygenation will improve conditions/capacity, along with a proviso regarding the potential disaster from a loss of power, is all one can hope for.

OK...you've got me on the "aggressive stocking" issue. I AM known to pack more fish (comfortably, safely, and properly I must add!) into an aquarium than your average bear!

Finally, I will reiterate that you are right. I should help you, rather than criticize. You're trying to do a helpful thing, and it only makes sense you'd want it to be as useful as possible. Again, the true source of my frustration is with the way people are treating it (as "gospel") and forgetting that trial-and-error is a time honored facet of fishkeeping. I chastise myself for taking it out on you for merely trying to be helpful.
Mister Sparkle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2010, 02:30 PM   #19 
yhbae
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Sparkle View Post
Alright...let me come right out and apologize for emoting on you a bit. You didn't deserve that. Your calculator is free, and your intent is to help people (mostly newbies). It was wrong of me to come at you like you're peddling snake oil. In fact, the source of my frustration is really with the people who are treating your application as though it is the newest "scripture" in fishkeeping.
That's a fair statement and I have seen this before. So I understand where you are coming from.

Quote:
Now, in terms of the comment regarding filtration...what I meant was that you list a specific type of sponge filter and don't really have an option for selecting it by surface area of the sponge. In essence, this is the part that matters in a sponge, which is a very basic implement. Many of us use homemade sponge filters and the "hydro" filters aren't very forthcoming about some of their basic specs. However, if you have some "typical" dimensions available for generic sponges, it can usefully calculate filtration for us! I have a HUGE sponge that Hydro WISHES it could match with their biggest filter, with about as much surface area (thanks to the design) as 2 of their biggest models (rated for 125-gallon aquariums) put together. I use it in smaller aquariums, and I can tell you right now that their listed "flow rates" are complete puffery! But the gph on a sponge filter is actually less important than it would be on an external, canister, or even an internal filter. The kind of flow rate Hydro advertises would make a sponge filter completely unacceptable for the typical use of a sponge! What matters most is surface area for biological filtration.
Agreed. This is why I stuck to relatively well known brands for sponge filters. At least those are known quantities. I also use DIY sponge filters which I cannot enter in AqAdvisor. The problem (as you mentioned) is not only that I need to know the air pump capacity but the surface area and what type of sponge being used. Not sure if I can capture this in a software. Size of holes? Weight of the sponge? Not sure if any of that will work. Hence I have not provided a way to do this - I am open to suggestions.

Quote:
Yes, I would really appreciate if the calculator could treat water changing as a variable. I can see why it is a usable outcome, but maybe if I can plug in to the calculator that my schedule is to provide 3 or 4 water changes per week, it can give me a "minimum" amount of water to change each time. Ideally, if I provide a frequency AND amount for water change regimen, it would calculate into the final capacity as a similar function of filtration/bioload reduction/oxygenation, and might even make recommendations in terms of greater volume changed etc. However, I do realize that this would be an EXTREMELY complicated function (which becomes somewhat self-dependent in its own right, perhaps only capable of resulting in the dreaded ol' "E" from our calculators of yesterday!) and would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to implement. Perhaps a sort-of "canned statement" added to the calculator to the effect that 'more frequent/voluminous water changes can have a significant effect on the calculations' would be about all one could really expect.
Let me see if I got this right. So are you asking for a feature where a user can specify his/her own frequency of water changes and let AqAdvisor calculate the volume for each water change?

And the other component, I believe, is that you want to see stocking level become more generous when user is willing to do more water changes, correct? This is as if water changes become part of filtration capacity?

Quote:
One immediate example of a species whose "minimums" aren't quite correct is the swordtails. Granted, the consensus on the net is actually wrong about this as well, based on a misquoted early "rule" that you wanted to keep swordtails in groups of at least TEN (a rule that has since been roundly debunked, though the capacity needed for 10 swords lives on!).
Did my app report that you need to keep 10 swordtales as a minimum? That needs to be fixed if that is what is being reported.

EDIT: May be not. The app doesn't report this so you must mean that you need to keep 10 of them? This is a news to me if that is the case.

Quote:
But I'll go ahead and cite Kathleen Wood, a successul keeper and author, who has demonstrated success in care, long-term housing, community inclusion, and breeding of swordtails in standard-dimension aquariums HALF the size your site lists as the "minimum" for a breeding trio. She has even recommended them to newbies as a good use of 10-gallon aquariums, and I haven't heard about any complaints that it was creating failure. Some sites (fishlore.com) do reflect this as a "more correct" minimum. One reason that the minimum size of an aquarium for a swordtail is often greatly overstated is the effect that their tail has on the overall length of the fish. Up to half of a swordtail is tail! I know Kathleen's been successful with them in 10 gallons for a great deal of time. I've experienced a lot of success with them in a 15-gallon standard, and I just recently became aware that even Sea World regularly keeps them in a 15 gallon (why Sea World is keeping swordtails, I don't know, but I digress)!
That's a nice story. As I mentioned before, I do listen to users and correct DB as I go along and this is a perfect example where people's experience influences the knowledge DB. Just tried it in AqAdvisor - 1 male and 2 females makes up a 89% bioload so I assume that is ok. So I only need to worry about minimum tank size.

Quote:
This is just the example I can most readily recall, as I've played with various mixtures of fish in your calculator since it was brought up to me as the "best thing since sliced bread". Again, my frustration is more with the fact that people treat it as definitive rather than as the "guide" that you clearly intended it to be. In terms of the guidance you provide, however, I would place printed publication in a higher position of authority than the internet. A web page doesn't usually check an author's resume as closely as a well-respected publisher might...for example, aqua-fish.net suggests that swordtails require 200 liters (that's 53 gallons!!!!!!) of aquarium for a quartet. Equally disturbing is that the range for maximum TL among web sites ranges from 2-5 inches...that's a 150% margin for error!
I agree. This is one of the reason why I created this tool. Most profile site data are static - they never get updated. So if the initial data were wrong, they are wrong forever. But AqAdvisor is very dynamic. I spend about 20 hours per week on this app, and about half of that time is being spent on improving the accuracy rather than implementing new features. I intend to continue for the next foreseeable future.

Quote:
OK...you've got me on the "aggressive stocking" issue. I AM known to pack more fish (comfortably, safely, and properly I must add!) into an aquarium than your average bear!
Oh yes. And I've had users complain to me that their tanks are 300% stocked and did fine for years. I believe them. If I ask them if that is what they would suggest to beginners, they usually say 'no'. So the moral of the story is that experts can push the envelop further than beginners. I sometimes do too. But for beginners, I believe they should start more conservatively.

Quote:
Finally, I will reiterate that you are right. I should help you, rather than criticize. You're trying to do a helpful thing, and it only makes sense you'd want it to be as useful as possible. Again, the true source of my frustration is with the way people are treating it (as "gospel") and forgetting that trial-and-error is a time honored facet of fishkeeping. I chastise myself for taking it out on you for merely trying to be helpful.
I understand what you mean 100%. Had the very same discussion at different places multiple times now so this is not new to me. Its an argument between two (relatively) experienced users who both care about fish and are interested in educating new keepers. Each time, the conclusion was to make people aware that use this app as a guideline, not a bible. It is a useful tool to quickly narrow down the possibilities, but always check on their forums with their final candidate stocking plans. On the positive side, I've seen many novice keepers who come up with all kind of interesting stocking plans that are not common but doable, as confirmed by the experts on the forums. This was one of the things I hoped the app would achieve.
yhbae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2010, 04:10 PM   #20 
Mister Sparkle
Member
 
Mister Sparkle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by yhbae View Post
The problem (as you mentioned) is not only that I need to know the air pump capacity but the surface area and what type of sponge being used. Not sure if I can capture this in a software. Size of holes? Weight of the sponge? Not sure if any of that will work. Hence I have not provided a way to do this - I am open to suggestions.
my suggestion would probably be to just calculate it on a basic level of surface area...i.e. forgetting the peculiarities of material (which we all know can be significant) and limiting it to a more basic area of the external dimensions of the sponge (e.g. square inch calculations for basic rectangular and spherical dimensions). I'm not sure how that function will look in the end...again, maybe it's incredibly difficult, if not impossible.



Quote:
Let me see if I got this right. So are you asking for a feature where a user can specify his/her own frequency of water changes and let AqAdvisor calculate the volume for each water change?
Yes. I think this would be a helpful feature, especially to the novice user, who can actually see in a very dramatic way the effect that more frequent water changes will have in terms of how much water will need to be removed for the aquarium to operate safely.

Quote:
And the other component, I believe, is that you want to see stocking level become more generous when user is willing to do more water changes, correct? This is as if water changes become part of filtration capacity?
Affirmative. I'm not sure if there really is a formula available for this, however. Over time, I think, many of us have just developed an eye for a sort of "this amount of fish requires x-amount of changing y-times per week", which is also a function of visual inspection in terms of observable detritus and water testing results.


Quote:
Did my app report that you need to keep 10 swordtales as a minimum? That needs to be fixed if that is what is being reported.

EDIT: May be not. The app doesn't report this so you must mean that you need to keep 10 of them? This is a news to me if that is the case.
Sorry...that must have been unclear. I remember a LONG time ago hearing advice that you had to keep 10 swordtails in a species-tank to have any success with breeding. It probably was for reasons as simple as that the first breeding success happened to occur in these conditions. That piece of advice came from the old-timers way back when I was getting started, so I can only imagine how old it is. 10 swordtails in a species tank requires a BARE minimum of a 20-gallon. I think that this misconception is primarily the reason 20-gallon is still quoted as the minimum...i.e. the "reason" for the advice has been forgotten, while the numerical value stuck around, and new reasons were sort of "made up" to account for it.

Quote:
That's a nice story. As I mentioned before, I do listen to users and correct DB as I go along and this is a perfect example where people's experience influences the knowledge DB. Just tried it in AqAdvisor - 1 male and 2 females makes up a 89% bioload so I assume that is ok. So I only need to worry about minimum tank size.
Right.

Quote:
I spend about 20 hours per week on this app, and about half of that time is being spent on improving the accuracy rather than implementing new features. I intend to continue for the next foreseeable future.
That's quite a commitment on your part!


Quote:
Oh yes. And I've had users complain to me that their tanks are 300% stocked and did fine for years. I believe them. If I ask them if that is what they would suggest to beginners, they usually say 'no'. So the moral of the story is that experts can push the envelop further than beginners. I sometimes do too. But for beginners, I believe they should start more conservatively.
That's fair. I wonder, though, if that can be implemented into the "your tank is seriously overstocked" message....maybe you can state something to the effect of "unless you are an experienced aquarist who can meet the maintenance/biological needs of this aquarium, we recommend..." A statement like that can actually be implemented at a much lower level than 150% (which is where I believe the statement currently begins to appear), and could seem a little less "offensive" to those of us who are currently seeing these messages and saying "nuh-uh!!!!!!!" Also, you could then keep the "seriously overstocked" message and place it at a much higher %-capacity...say, somewhere in the level of 200-300%. A 15-gallon standard aquarium with 4 swordtails, 9 guppies, and 4 bronze corys is certainly deserving of the "experienced-aquarist" message, but imo not so much worthy of the one that says "seriously overstocked".

Quote:
On the positive side, I've seen many novice keepers who come up with all kind of interesting stocking plans that are not common but doable, as confirmed by the experts on the forums. This was one of the things I hoped the app would achieve.
That is certainly a positive aspect of the tool. Not many other quick ways for novices to assess these sorts of things.

Cheers! 8)
Mister Sparkle is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.