Saltwater Aquarium Hobby Survey

[mkirda]

There were multiple corrections, edits and suggestions that I made and the survey evolved from numerous drafts over about a month's time. Each change requires approval by the Institutional Review Board within the University of Florida. Over a week passed before absolute final approval, and there just seemed to be lots of delays from the very start.

IRB? Oh, God...

People not in Higher Ed will absolutely not understand what this means.
IRB approvals are required by the University as a CYA measure. In the past, sometimes various experiments were done where the patients did not give full consent to various procedures. This led to a situation where review boards were set up to review any research being done to be sure that proper consent was given... In essence, so the university cannot be sued.

Now, IRB review can be a researcher's greatest nightmare...
It makes no sense, common or otherwise, why a questioniare like this would require IRB approval, but since it is 'research' and it involves humans, IRB gets involved. :roll:

From my experience, your experience with IRB is quite typical, John.
Heard the same thing before at the university, how IRB attempted to clarify things, and made them worse...

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[hdtran]

The paper title as quoted by dizzy is

Hobbyists Preferences for Eco-labeled Marine Ornamental Results from an Internet Survey

What can be presented is either hobbyists prefer eco-labeled, hobbyists don't prefer eco-labeled, or neither. The title does not infer that the result will be that hobbyists prefer eco-labeled.

Let me quote a completely esoteric paper title to you all:

State Feedback Integral Controller with Feedforward Based on Iterative Learning Control and Energy Shaping for Nanometer Positioning

Can you tell me, from the title, whether the Iterative Learning Control will be better or worse than conventional controllers?

That said, I hope that the attendees at the conference question Dr. Larkin regarding the validity of any conclusions drawn, because of (a) the artificiality of the 5 day vs 14 day garantee (I like my vegetarian analogy), and (b) the self-selected nature of open internet polls, where people have to 'call in' to register their results. On the basis of (b), the Oakland Raiders won the super bowl last year. I'm sure that Dr Larkin is working very hard, and the eminent John Brandt put in a lot of effort to help her, but the results, whatever they are, will be suspect, at least because of (b).

If you're going to do market research, do it right. Consult, not just aquarists (your customer base), but also MBA's on proper methodology.

Regards,

Hy

 

[dizzy]

That damn Mike, he lied about no one from MAC reading this stuff anymore. John the postings over here are mostly for entertainment value these days. Kind of like Hardball on MSNBC. Or Crossfire on CNN. We have to try an analize what NGOs are doing because they won't tell us themselves. Feel free just to ignore this stuff. :wink: BTW the story Ferdie is painting of the situation in the Philippines is far different than the version of events in the Quarterly Newsletter. I'll certainly be waiting for the survey analysis at MO before I make my final judgement to its value. If its makes sense to me I'll say so, and if it doesn't I'll say that too. I've not been impressed with the progress MAC has made toward securing a clean fish supply in the Philippines. To me MACs shifting priorities appear to look like an admission of failure. Once again these are just my opinions and not meant to be taken as gospel. If all this forum was, was people kissing people's ass all the time no one would ever come here anymore.
Mitch
PS Tell MAC I'm sorry the CCIF accord didn't work out better for them. Look forward to seeing you at MO.

Note this post was edited to clarify that I was suggesting Mike fibbed and not John Brandt. Hope this clears it up.

 

[John_Brandt]

Damn Mike, he lied about no one from MAC reading this stuff anymore.

I said I was through here, but not if I'm accused of lying. What exactly do you mean by that statement, Mr. Gibbs?

 

[dizzy]

John,
Calm down. I was ribbing Mike because he said no one from MAC read this stuff anymore, or something to that effect. I'm not saying your lying. Why so defensive? Mike what was that you told us again?
Mitch

 

[mkirda]

Mike what was that you told us again?
Mitch

I said that I have heard that no one from the MAC really reads this forum anymore. I did not say that John Brandt didn't read it. :wink:
There is a difference, you know. {ribbing you back}

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Anonymous]

John,

You're trying to tell us that someone came up with a MAC oriented survey, had you work on it, planned well in advance to present it at the MO conference, and the executive director of MAC was never informed about it until last night?? Sounds a little "fishy" to me.

John,
Calm down. I was ribbing Mike because he said no one from MAC read this stuff anymore, or something to that effect. I'm not saying your lying. Why so defensive? Mike what was that you told us again?
Mitch

I think John has a right to be defensive. He returns to this forum after several months hiatus only to be accused of saying "fishy" things within 14 minutes of his return. What a lovely reception. :roll:

-Lee

 

[dizzy]

Lee,
I went back and edited the post where John thought I was saying he lied. I hope it is clearer now. Actually his black helicoper post sort of put me on the defensive, but after all this is just entertainment. Right.
mitch

 

[dizzy]

Lee,
I realize I was being irreverent toward the survey. I honestly did believe that it was a MAC concoction. It was remarkably similar to a dusted off version of the MAC survey I mentioned earlier. Surely someone else out there knows the one I'm referring to. After reading all the responses I now realize that similarities in the certification surveys do exist. No disrespect to Dr. Larkin was intended. I do look forward to hearing the analaysis at MO. After reading Ferdie's post I am very concerned that there will never be enough certifed animals from the Philippines to supply the industry. If PI gets shut down the pressure on fishes from clean sources will be tremendous. I'm worried about the future of the industry. I'm disappointed things have not gone better in PI.
Mitch

 

[MaryHM]

Lee, please. It's not like John came in here all friendly. Let's see, what were the first things he said upon his return to the forum??? Oh yeah, here it is:

Dear Mitch,

You need to adjust your tinfoil hat, otherwise those Black Helicopters hovering over your store will get a good reading on your brainwaves.

So in typical Industry Forum fashion, his unnecessary comments to Mitch were ignored while my obvious and pertinent question was condemned. No one else thinks it's odd that the executive director of MAC has absolutely no clue that a Sea Grant university program is constructing a survey that is completely based on MAC certification and it's value to hobbyists, that this survey is to be posted on the internet boards, and that the results are to be presented at the Marine Ornamental conference?? I'm sorry, but that sounds extremely odd to me. Extremely. And I said so. Forgive me for having an opinion. On second thought, don't.

 

[clarionreef]

My take is different and coming from the field,
To imply that you might offer good quality certified blueface angels with a certification is being way, way ahead of any capability to ever produce them.
To flatter oneself or ones NGO like this is to promote a very false and premature "what if"....
The modest talent required to make this little survey is 1,000 times easier then training people to come up with blueface angels done right.
Failing to produce any angels beyond the Singapore angel and the halfblack, MACs Buhol mini station has a long way to go.
I guess the beauty of fiction is that it can take you beyond your own capability and humdrum existance. Falling in love with surveys, concepts, graphs, mission statements and 5 year plans is all very well and good in the corporate world of dry goods product promotion, but unfortunately that methodology doesn't work so well in the final outposts of Bugsuk Island, Balabac and the coral reefs bordering Sabah, Malaysia where blueface angels come from.
People, using the valueable and harder and harder to come by blueface angel in the survey is a slick way of insinuating a value added proposition into the equation. They used it because bluefaces are worth the insurance policy in most peoples estimation. The only problem is...they cannot do blueface!
Its like trying to impress people with the false proposition:
"What if I bench press 300 lbs? when you know very well you can't do it and can never do it.
As for slime-free maroons. They are MAC certified from Buhol and they suck. This is a professional, verifiable and empiracle observation.
Why do they suck? Because they are produced exactly like any other maroons. There are secrets to good maroons that the MAC station in Buhol knows nothing of. It could be learned...but wait. How could the system ever be improved upon SINCE THEY'RE ALREADY CERTIFIED??!
I for one will not tell them the secrets. I will not be so bold as to imply that I could improve on a certified product because...well, its certified and therefore is a product of quality procedures, high standards...blah, blah, blah. [ save it for the Nemo crowd, funders and other beginners]
The maroon example alone indicates that there is little beyond certification but paperwork and bookkeeping. Dealers I know want the slime-free maroon first...paperwork second. If you can't get them to live in the first place...how on earth can you certify them?
Is it madness and out of line to ask for reality and value BEFORE P.R. and paper?
Is this why so many of us are now considered to be pariahs?
How did it come to this that the process of validating the integrity of a product works backwards instead of forwards?
By abandoning the field so much and working the conventions, conferences and funders, MACs time in the sun may be squandering the time we have to get this done right.
The drumbeat of Filipino nationalism, social justice and fair economic development on these issues has already begun.
If this dog won't or can't hunt...we'll need another dog.
Steve
PS. Yes, technically blueface come from Buhol. There are a few XXXL ghosts around that flee like a bat out of hell when the sound of the motor approaches. 99% of them were decimated in the years Cebu Aquatics distributed tons of cyanide to all the collectors there from 12 years of age and up.

 

[Kalkbreath]

I believe all the Atlanta LFS offer a 24 or 48 hour policy on marine livestock. I offer 48 hours .

 

[dizzy]

Jeff that's nice. Do you replace the $150.00 imperator angel that was disemboweled by the clown trigger you warned them against? Do you replace the $80.00 purple tang that someone left out in the hot car in summer time while they went shopping at the mall? Have you ever had a fish in your store for 3-4 months that is that is fat as a tick, and have someone bring in its mutilated lifeless body demanding a refund? Oh that's right you haven't been a retailer all that long. Trust me people will do things that kill perfectly healthy fish and then come in expecting a replacement or a full refund. Those jerks are the reason we do it case by case. The stories I could tell after 19-years in this business. Water quality tests don't necessarily mean jack.
Mitch

PS All people have to do is put every fish that dies in the freezer. Go to a store and buy another one, then return with the former dead body to claim a refund. Think it don't happen, get real.

 

[Anonymous]

Jeff that's nice. Do you replace the $150.00 imperator angel that was disemboweled by the clown trigger you warned them against? Do you replace the $80.00 purple tang that someone left out in the hot car in summer time while they went shopping at the mall? Have you ever had a fish in your store for 3-4 months that is that is fat as a tick, and have someone bring in its mutilated lifeless body demanding a refund? Oh that's right you haven't been a retailer all that long. Trust me people will do things that kill perfectly healthy fish and then come in expecting a replacement or a full refund. Those jerks are the reason we do it case by case. The stories I could tell after 19-years in this business. Water quality tests don't necessarily mean jack.
Mitch

PS All people have to do is put every fish that dies in the freezer. Go to a store and buy another one, then return with the former dead body to claim a refund. Think it don't happen, get real.

one lfs i worked in back in '95, in MA., solved that problem quite easily.

not only did we learn to identify 'freezer burn' :wink: , we also kept a written sales log, w/the date of sale, the species of fish, and the name/ signature of the salesperson.

helped us catch just about every scammer that would use fish bought from other stores, to try and get a replacement fish from us, using our reciept for a fish of the same price. :wink:

that was the only store i've seen that had any kind of warranty on sw

 

[jamesw]

I think everyone should just take a chill pill...lol

The title of the survey is "Hobbyists Preferences for Eco-labeled Marine Ornamental Results from an Internet Survey" That could mean just about anything. The results could end up showing that hobbyists 100% of the time prefer the cheapest fish...

I agree with John - the attacks here DO show marked paranoia. Let's wait and see the results of the research first, eh?

Cheers
James

 

[dizzy]

James,
FYI I was actually just poking fun at what appeared to be a poorly written title to the presentation. I agree completely with the comments Hy made about it. I thought scientist types had a sense of humor and were thick skinned from peer reviews. We all need to choose our words carefully least people get the wrong meaning and get huffy. Winky eyes may not always work. You should watch the cable news shows some time James. They call Bush a draft doger and Kerry a Jane Fonda hugger. In spite of everything else that went down, we were all pretty much able to concur that the survey has some problems, so who's to say it wasn't a meanful discussion.
Mitch
PS
I had a couple more thoughts. If I was Dr. Larkin and I was thinking about giving a talk at MO on this subject, I would do the survey well in advance. I would then analyze the data carefully. If the results were not what we were looking for I would cancel the talk. It might just help to prevent an embarassing situation. But that's just me. :wink: I almost forgot the winking eye.

 

[MaryHM]

Here's a question for the scientific types:

The survey ends February 25. The presentation is March 2. How often do research scientists conduct their research and leave less than 6 days to intepret the results and write their conclusions and the final presentation? Do people usually wait and write major- I assume Powerpoint- presentations less than a week before the event?

 

[MaryHM]

And one more thing. Paul Holthus is not just attending the conference- he's a co-chair of the organizing committee. Therefore wouldn't it stand to reason that he's one of the people deciding which presentations/topics are to be a part of the conference? And wouldn't it stand to reason that he would be aware of this presentation and what it entailed (especially since it is geared toward MAC) prior to a couple of days ago?

 

[hdtran]

Let me field MaryHM's questions...

I presented a poster and an oral paper at the EIPBN conference in May 2003 (don't ask what EIPBN is). The poster was finished the day before I flew to Tampa for the meeting; I uploaded the poster to Kinko's in Tampa to print and had them deliver it to the hotel. I was working on my powerpoints to the evening before my talk.

As for conference organizing committee, I can't speak to that. I've chaired sessions at conferences, and my duties as session chair include selecting the presentations from selected abstracts, and introducing the speakers. It is accepted practice, at least, in my field, to submit an abstract for a conference prior to having results. You do have to be mealy-mouthed in the abstract if you have no results (yet), and the organizers generally spot that immediately. You can also spot if the work has been completed, and then, you honor the presenter by making their paper an "invited paper."

While I have neither submitted papers for consideration by MO, nor have I served as session chair or as organizer for any MO or marine-related conferences, I would not be surprised if they operated in a similar fashion to the meetings which I do attend.

 

[MaryHM]

Well thank you for taking the time to actually answer my questions. That's a first around here! I think I can understand working on the final poster/powerpoint at the last minute. But as for me, I'd have a hard time gathering the basic research premise for my presentation less than a week before I have to present it. Basically having to start the whole thing from scratch with less than a week to the big finale seems difficult and a little irresponsible to me.