Hmm.... lots of thoughts with this thread and I'll share a few of them. Why? Because I'm an expert at my own opinion and that qualifies me to post it!
Identifying experts in this hobby is incredibly challenging. I would go so far as to say that not only is it impossible to find an "SPS Expert" but that someone who was an expert 20 years ago may not even be successful today. 20 years ago people could start a tank with live rock straight from the ocean. Now, it seems most tanks are established using dry rock. Starting new tanks live vs dry is like handling two completely different animals.
Metal Halide lighting was used where options consisted of what bulb is used and how long it should be on. Did any hobbyists really care about the difference between PAR and PUR or use a meter to test it? Flow was mostly closed loop or AC powerheads. Aquarium controllers didn't exist. Testing for minor trace elements wasn't even possible and the test kits that did exist were rudimentary.
Think of where nutrients were a few years ago? The recommendation was that for an SPS tank you needed very low nitrate and no phosphate. And then people focused on lowering phosphates. We found better ways to measure low phosphate. We implemented things like GFO and lanthium chloride and we gained the ability to drive PO4 down so low we could kill SPS.
And speaking of nutrients, look at how much coral feeding has changed over the last 20 years. Amino acids, freeze dried anything and everything, commercially produced frozen food with probiotics. We've also come to accept that nutrient levels, feeding regimes, and alkalinity levels need to be considered together. If you run a tank at 7dkh and 5ppm NO3 you may be the wrong person to help someone who is running 10dkh and 20ppm NO3.
I know.. I'm writing a book.. but I used a Latin phrase earlier today and want to address it quickly again here. Post hoc ergo procter hoc. Basically, it boils down to "after this, therefor because of this". How many times do we tell people that "well I did this and this was the result" so you should do it too, only for them to have different results. Flow is one that drives me crazy this way. It drives me nuts to see people recommend flow solutions without knowing what the aquascape is going to look like. Or people recommending 50x to 100x tank turnover in powerhead ratings. If 50x tank turnover was important, why don't we hide them all in the sump? Why are we telling someone with a bad algae breakout along with cyano to dose NO3 to raise nutrients? Why are we telling people to add nitrifying bacteria products to add diversity when dealing with dinoflagellates? Why? Because it seems to have worked in one situation and we blindly apply it to all situations.
We are incredibly fortunate to have an expert in Chemistry like RHF (and a few others) and it lends itself well since this is science that can be proven. How do you identify experts in other areas where it isn't easily quantifiable? It sounds great to say that we should identify an expert in different areas but in a group of 20 people we would come up with 10 different experts who don't all agree. Now multiply that by 20,000. It isn't practical.
Oh.. and I'm a fan of asking to see someones system. It may not prove they do or don't know there stuff, but at least it is something. If their tank doesn't look like what you want yours to be they may not be the best person to get advice from.
