Best reef read in a long time
- Thread starter Thales
- Start date
G
GreshamH
Guest
Thales said:
Nice guy, great corals but priced out of my range . I can't afford Deltecs or Mercedes either.
I have issues with people hiding behind screen names and pen names though. Probably won't be reading much of "its" work. Absolutely zero crebability but still has the liability.
G
GreshamH
Guest
How are his frag prices any different then the uber high end corals, fish and equipment Reef Builders posts about every day?Joost_ said:
BAR tradionally has kept the vendor bashing next to nill. Such comments not only reflect poorly on the club, it makes the Sponsorship BOD roll much much harder. As some one that stepped up to the plate to do that job in the past I would hope you keep that in mind before posting such comments here on BAR.
Not to mention I had invited him out to BAYMAC.
G
GreshamH
Guest
Part two is out?Thales said:
G
GreshamH
Guest
Ok
sfsuphysics
Supporting Member
not too shabby of a read, however there wasn't enough to really get my juices going. Ironically in the same vein as the article, these "micro-transactions" or "micro-stories" aka blogs just don't do it for me. It'd be like having a tank thread showing off a tank, empty, then a month later showing the stand, another month, the lights go up, another month... (Hi JIM!!! 
)
Don't get me wrong, I want to read more, just that was essentially the abstract, that wasn't part one of an article. Don't just show me the cow! Give me a taste of the meat too!
Oh and going by the silhouettes I'd say the two people responsible for the coral craze are George Takai, and Bill Nye
)Don't get me wrong, I want to read more, just that was essentially the abstract, that wasn't part one of an article. Don't just show me the cow! Give me a taste of the meat too!
Oh and going by the silhouettes I'd say the two people responsible for the coral craze are George Takai, and Bill Nye
anathema
Guest
The entire "point" of that anonymously written article can be summed up in this paraphrased quote from another forum:
However since I'm here, let's look at the possible motives behind this article:
A: Profit. This is an anonymous smear job against someone's competitor and they expect to damage their business. Doesn't seem like the smartest move to me, but based on the anonymous author a very likely one.
B: Profit again. I've never been to this reefs.com site, I generally search google for subjects I want to read about and pull up articles from many places. Reefbuilders comes up a lot, this one never has. Bravo, it worked, I admit I clicked around the site a bit, didn't find much to hold my interest, and left. However I bet the increase in traffic can be used to sell ads so someone has an extra paycheck. Not as stupid as the first profit motive, but I hope they write some interesting stuff before part two comes out...
C: Altruism. There is a VERY SLIGHT chance that someone feels there is severe harm being done to the hobby, and in this case the "culprits" are going to be the consumer. (and his mom or something) Either that or he's going to single out a couple businesses he thinks are horribly run. If this is the case, it's our poor anonymous penpal who has missed the point. I agree with Gresham, anonymous equals zero credibility. If you are going to accuse someone of wrongdoing you have to be ready to testify.
Now as far as how I FEEL about this subject, you know what, I personally feel the hobby has gotten MUCH better because of these trends. It's kind of humorous to me, because I think speculators(ie; day traders, house flippers et al) are leeches, and I strongly believe that in order to have a business you have to provide a service or produce a tangible product. Speculators do neither of those things, and actually end up damaging the product they speculate on.
However, in this case I have noticed something in the last year. I have been able to go from staring at pictures of corals I'll never be able to procure for my tank to actually owning some of my wish list corals I never thought I'd be able to get. The reason for this is online sales from the same people that the article attempts to vilify. In the early days of my involvement of this hobby, I used to see things on RC that I had NEVER seen in stores, and I spent an immense amount of time at the stores, even keeping track of shipment days and meeting the boxes. I can honestly say I now HATE the experience of an old school fish store, with no prices marked, and a guy who will often tell you, "Oh, that one isn't for sale." Guess what, when you visit the store the next time and ask about it, it's sold.
I've come to realize that the majority of these operations aren't speculating, they are cherry picking. I also fully support that, as it provides a service. Corals have ALWAYS been cherry picked, but before these websites popped up with LE cherry picks the corals went to a certain few people and the average guy never had a shot at buying them. I'm happy that my selection of corals has gone from being limited to how many stores I can drive to in my spare time to as many websites as I can google up. I love that if I see a coral for sale on a website I can actually buy it, not be told "it's not for sale" only to see it sold to someone else later.
So unfortunately, no, online coral sales AREN'T like day traders, the article fails in it's core premise. Cherry pickers actually provide a benefit to the product and consumer. Yeah, I still hate the silly names, and with that wider selection comes higher prices due to a bigger pool of buyers. I've decided I'll pay higher prices online to actually be able to buy something I like.
As far as you Rich, I'm disappointed. I expected better from you. I can only hope that part two completely turns it around, because part one was a piece of fluff, and far from the "best reef read in the last few minutes." When I saw the post was from you I was hoping to see a video on how to raise my own flamboyant cuttlefish, instead I ended up with a rewritten version of this:
http://www.reefersanonymous.net/index.php?/forum/22-the-hate-forumreef-beef/
Kraylen said:
However since I'm here, let's look at the possible motives behind this article:
A: Profit. This is an anonymous smear job against someone's competitor and they expect to damage their business. Doesn't seem like the smartest move to me, but based on the anonymous author a very likely one.
B: Profit again. I've never been to this reefs.com site, I generally search google for subjects I want to read about and pull up articles from many places. Reefbuilders comes up a lot, this one never has. Bravo, it worked, I admit I clicked around the site a bit, didn't find much to hold my interest, and left. However I bet the increase in traffic can be used to sell ads so someone has an extra paycheck. Not as stupid as the first profit motive, but I hope they write some interesting stuff before part two comes out...
C: Altruism. There is a VERY SLIGHT chance that someone feels there is severe harm being done to the hobby, and in this case the "culprits" are going to be the consumer. (and his mom or something) Either that or he's going to single out a couple businesses he thinks are horribly run. If this is the case, it's our poor anonymous penpal who has missed the point. I agree with Gresham, anonymous equals zero credibility. If you are going to accuse someone of wrongdoing you have to be ready to testify.
Now as far as how I FEEL about this subject, you know what, I personally feel the hobby has gotten MUCH better because of these trends. It's kind of humorous to me, because I think speculators(ie; day traders, house flippers et al) are leeches, and I strongly believe that in order to have a business you have to provide a service or produce a tangible product. Speculators do neither of those things, and actually end up damaging the product they speculate on.
However, in this case I have noticed something in the last year. I have been able to go from staring at pictures of corals I'll never be able to procure for my tank to actually owning some of my wish list corals I never thought I'd be able to get. The reason for this is online sales from the same people that the article attempts to vilify. In the early days of my involvement of this hobby, I used to see things on RC that I had NEVER seen in stores, and I spent an immense amount of time at the stores, even keeping track of shipment days and meeting the boxes. I can honestly say I now HATE the experience of an old school fish store, with no prices marked, and a guy who will often tell you, "Oh, that one isn't for sale." Guess what, when you visit the store the next time and ask about it, it's sold.
I've come to realize that the majority of these operations aren't speculating, they are cherry picking. I also fully support that, as it provides a service. Corals have ALWAYS been cherry picked, but before these websites popped up with LE cherry picks the corals went to a certain few people and the average guy never had a shot at buying them. I'm happy that my selection of corals has gone from being limited to how many stores I can drive to in my spare time to as many websites as I can google up. I love that if I see a coral for sale on a website I can actually buy it, not be told "it's not for sale" only to see it sold to someone else later.
So unfortunately, no, online coral sales AREN'T like day traders, the article fails in it's core premise. Cherry pickers actually provide a benefit to the product and consumer. Yeah, I still hate the silly names, and with that wider selection comes higher prices due to a bigger pool of buyers. I've decided I'll pay higher prices online to actually be able to buy something I like.
As far as you Rich, I'm disappointed. I expected better from you. I can only hope that part two completely turns it around, because part one was a piece of fluff, and far from the "best reef read in the last few minutes." When I saw the post was from you I was hoping to see a video on how to raise my own flamboyant cuttlefish, instead I ended up with a rewritten version of this:
http://www.reefersanonymous.net/index.php?/forum/22-the-hate-forumreef-beef/
Thales
Past President
anathema said:
It is not.
Reefs.com is a new site. If you think that Manhattan Reefs and Reefs.com are about profit, you are very very mistaken.
There are a lot of people that feel that way.
You have very strong opinions on something that you haven't read yet. I assure you, the author (funny you assume its a man) isn't going to single anyone out.
I think that as long as there are no direct accusations against individuals or individual companies, it doesn't matter who wrote it - its the content that is important.
Who exactly was accused and what were they accused of?
The hobby is better with 500 dollar single polyp frags that are promoted by macro lens, photoshopped photos taken under blue light? Weird.
You are so grumpy!
Talk about missing the point.
The average guy has a chance at buying one polyp for 500 dollars?
The author is not arguing against online sales.
You have missed the point.
You have a problem with me because I like a satirical, funny commentary on the state of the hobby and posted it in my home forum where people generally have a sense of humor? Weird.
Wait a sec - who ever said part one was more than a piece of fluff?
I think your comparison with reefersanonymous doesn't work, and that you have jumped to a lot of incorrect conclusions about a funny blog post.
All that said, I still think this little series of blogs is one of the best reef reads in a long time. I think its fresh, funny and honest and I wish I had written them.
