Claiming of fish

[nvcichlids]

I know that with some people it is completely possible that they keep all these different species of catfish, but I think it would be highly beneficial if you should have to submit atleast one picture of your fish inorder to claim it as being one of your "cat"species. I noticed by looking through some peoples cats list that they have like 50+ pleco species and have only been keeping them for 20 days, which I find it hard to believe. I don't know maybe I am the only one annoyed with this?

Anyways, love the site!

NV

[Richard B]

They might have kept them for ages but only just set up the my cats & not input the start date - which then defaults to when they set it up not an actual start date.Matbe this addresses some of your point?

Also there are some people (lucky devils) who do have loads of tanks & dozens of species of either corys, or Lno's etc

[Jools]

I'm not so sure that many of these lists are inaccurate, but then I do tend to have a rosy view of human nature.

At the end of the day, it's not a competition, rather a service for (cat)fishkeepers. So, if you want to make it all up, then there's not much I can do about it. After all, a photograph only proves that the person took a photo of the fish (it could be in a shop for example) and also discriminates against those without cameras.

The same problem exists with people claiming to keep species that are very unlikely that they really have, such as

Farlowella acus

.

About the only way to get around this would be for other members to vouch for a particular list and perhaps also allowing a "wish list" feature which might allow people to express their catfish dreams without straying into fantasy too much.

I'm going to move this one into resolved in a little while once everyone has had their say as it's not something I think I can do much with?

Jools

[Jools]

They might have kept them for ages but only just set up the my cats & not input the start date - which then defaults to when they set it up not an actual start date.Matbe this addresses some of your point?

I think the current behaviour is correct. I.E. The date of entry is the start date but it can be overtyped with a date in the past at anytime. How else could it work?

Jools

[Richard B]

Yes Jools - that's what i meant - ie, if i have had a fish for 10 years but enter it today & don't overtype, it will look like i started keeping the fish today

[MatsP]

I took the list of users, and passed it through a sort in Excel, and here's the top 25 users:

Code: Select all

Dinyar	125
zedogz	105
Silurus	90
Brotox	88
Coryman	79
Birger Amundsen	72
Daragh	67
fulvioander	64
Dave Rinaldo	60
Marc van Arc	60
Kampfer	59
arapaima	58
yann	56
Coryologist	53
Freakdaddy	52
Lornek8	52
Plecofanatic1989	49
jollysue	48
Julie	48
amiidae	47
corybreed	46
daniel60	46
synoguy	44
lordotterby	43
soltarii007	43

There are several in there that I haven't heard of (or at least don't feel that I know). But I do believe the figures for the top ones of Dinyar, Silurus, Coryman, Birger Amundsen. I have personally seen more species unusual catfish in Dave Rinaldo's fish-room than you would find in a well-stocked shop. And judging by Marc Van Arc's posts, I'd expect he is not "lying" either.

Zedogs and Brotox seems to have clicked "add this species" many times for the same fish (so the number of unique species for that user is not as large as you actually would think by the number next to the user in the list) - perhaps to reflect owning several of the same fish or just "user error".

Another way to determine if it's LIKELY that someone has kept a lot of fish is to look at the contributions of images to the Cat-eLog [under "Contributors" in the Cat-eLog menu].

--
Mats

[Richard B]

Looking at your list Mats i thought 79 seemed a bit low for Ian (Coryman)

[MatsP]

Looking at your list Mats i thought 79 seemed a bit low for Ian (Coryman)

Well, it may not be complete in Ian's case... But 79 is roughly 25% of all Callichtyiidae in the Cat-eLog (there are 331 species - of these 208 have at least one keeper - so out of those 208, Coryman has covered almost 40% - which is fairly good I'd say).

--
Mats

[Marc van Arc]

I think the current behaviour is correct. I.E. The date of entry is the start date but it can be overtyped with a date in the past at anytime. How else could it work?

In my case the fishes I currently have are assigned to a tank. The other ones on my list - with or without data - are fishes from the past.
This list is far from complete and now and again I add some species I used to have. I don't do this to show off or for competitive reasons, but just because I like it.
I don't mind whether someone doubts this or not. As long as I know that it's true, everything is fine with me.

[nvcichlids]

Marc you aren't one that I was thinking of, but a few (2 closer to the top 10 rather than top 20) I would be very sceptical about.

I do thank you for your time and help justifying this to me./

[Marc van Arc]

Marc you aren't one that I was thinking of

No problem. I wasn't referring to you specifically either, but merely speaking in general.

[Bas Pels]

This list is far from complete and now and again I add some species I used to have. I don't do this to show off or for competitive reasons, but just because I like it.

And thus we know whom to direct eventual gueries to

I like this system