The editorial team
A small team, publishing under one name, reachable at one address. Every record and every guide here is compiled by it, every one of them carries the month it was checked, and none of them carries a personal byline.
What the team does is narrower than this category usually claims. It reads every source it can find on one animal, lines those sources up field by field, and writes down what they said rather than what it believes. The team is not the authority on this site. The sources named beside each figure are, and the team’s job is to represent them accurately and to be caught when it does not.
A figure here therefore has three possible histories, and the record says which one applies to every field. A published source states it, and it is transcribed with that source named beside it. Two sources disagree, and both are quoted, with the record saying which figure it carries and why. Or nobody publishes it, and the cell stays empty rather than taking a plausible number from somewhere.
What it has published
48 species records and 14 guides, resting on 247 source citations between them, to fifty three distinct publications across 52 domains, and 107 passages where two of those publications are quoted disagreeing with each other.
And 27 fields left empty. Every figure in this paragraph is counted from the records themselves when the page is built, which is the only reason to trust it over the paragraph above, and the reason the numbers on this page were wrong before it was written.
What it will not do
Publish a figure with nothing behind it. Average a disagreement into a number neither source printed. Name a medication or a dose. Fill a blank because an empty cell looks unfinished. Or rest an argument on its own tank, which you have no way to check from where you are sitting.
And it will not invent a person. If a named writer ever appears here it will be somebody you can reach, with the records they wrote listed under their name, and this section will say the month that started.
Why there is no byline photograph
The convention in this category is a friendly portrait, a first name and a sentence about twenty years of keeping fish. Often the person exists. Often they do not, and you have no way to tell from the page, which makes the whole device worth exactly nothing to you.
So this site does not use it. Records are compiled by the Aquagazer editorial team, every record names its sources where you can click them, and every record carries the month it was checked. Those three things can be verified from outside; a portrait cannot.
If that changes, it will change honestly: a named person, with the records they wrote, and a way to reach them.
What this site is
It is
- A species care database, where every record carries the same nine fields so two species can be compared without reading two essays.
- Explicit about its gaps. Forty eight records exist, twenty seven of their fields are blank, and every silo prints the species it has queued and has not written yet. Every one of those numbers is counted from the records when the page is built rather than typed into the sentence.
- A tool as much as a text. The stocking calculator answers from the records and refuses when they have no figure.
- Independent of what it recommends. There are no affiliate links, no sponsored records and no advertising on the site today.
It is not
- A shop. No live animals, no dry goods, no basket.
- A veterinary resource. No dosages, no treatment schedules, no diagnosis from a photograph. The water and health topic states that limit on its own page.
- A forum. Questions are welcome and they arrive by message, not as a comment thread nobody moderates.
- Finished. A species database with forty eight records is a beginning, and the honest thing is to show the queue rather than the illusion of completeness.
How this is paid for
Today, by nothing
No advertising, no affiliate links, no sponsored records, no paid placements in the index. That is not a boast about the future, it is a description of the site as it stands, and it is checkable: read the source of any page and there is no advertising script and no affiliate link in it. The one script that is not ours is Google Analytics, which does not load unless you allow it and which our privacy page lists field by field.
It also means the incentive that ruins most pages in this category is absent here. A care sheet that earns on a tank recommendation has a reason to recommend a bigger tank, and a symptom page that earns on medication has a reason to name one. Our records recommend what a source stated and stop.
If that changes
The likely funding is equipment affiliate links, and the rules are written down before there is any money involved rather than after: only for equipment a record already asks for, marked as such on the record, and never on a page about a sick animal.
The method page carries that policy in full, and it will carry the date it started applying. A disclosure added quietly after the fact is not a disclosure.
What comes next
In this order, and the order is set by what the records need rather than by what is quick to write.
The third saltwater record
Two of them exist, and the silo is held out of search results by our own rule until a third one lands, because a silo of two records is a claim rather than a reference. Clownfish is next and the rest of the queue is printed on the silo page itself.
Growth rate, which is nearly every blank on the site
Twenty seven fields are blank across the records and almost all of them are the same one: growth rate. Sources publish an adult size and they publish a lifespan, and a rate between the two is rarely published at all. Every one of those blanks now names the sources that were read for it, and reading them properly closed four rows that had been sitting empty: the celestial pearl danio, the common pleco, the kuhli loach and the corydoras each had a figure somebody had published and nobody here had gone looking for.
The freshwater queue, one record at a time
The species named on the freshwater fish hub, which prints its own queue and shortens it as records land rather than describing it from here. Each one gets the full nine fields or the blanks stay visible, and each one appears in every grid on the site the day it is published.
A photograph on more than one record
The betta record has one and every other record falls back to a drawn scale plate, which puts the recorded adult length against a ruler and does not pretend to document the animal. A licensed photograph of the right species is better than a drawing of it, and there is one so far. It is the largest visible gap here and the least dangerous one: a record carrying a plate is still checkable against its sources, and a photograph of the wrong fish is not.
Contact
Three things are worth writing to us about, and all three change the site.
A correction. The record, the field, and the source that says otherwise. The corrections policy explains what happens next, and it applies to a citation rather than to a preference.
A species you want written. The queue is ordered by what gets asked for, and one message moves a name up it. Naming a source that covers the animal well moves it further.
A broken link or a page that reads wrong. Especially anything that looks like a number we invented, because that is the one failure this site cannot afford.
Write to the team
One address, read by the people who write the records.
hello@aquagazer.com
An address to copy rather than a link to click, because the proxy in front of this site rewrites mail links into something that needs JavaScript to work. No newsletter, no account, no tracking pixel in a reply.
Questions about this site
Who is behind Aquagazer?
An editorial team, described in full in the first section of this page and working to the method published on the method page. No individual is named, because a name you cannot verify adds nothing that the sources and the dates on each record do not already give you.
Are you fishkeepers?
The site never rests an argument on that. Every figure here is a transcription from a named published source, and where our own judgment enters, on the one group per layer rule for instance, it is labeled as ours rather than dressed up as experience.
Is this written by AI?
The useful version of that question is whether the figures were checked, and the answer is on every record: the source behind each field, by name, with a link. Verification has changed something on every record so far, and the method page lists what it changed.
Can I reuse your tables?
The figures belong to the sources named beside them, so go to those sources. What is ours is the compilation, the derived grids and the writing, and a link back is the polite way to use any of it.
Why does the site look like this?
Because a care record is read for its figures, so the figures are the design. The pages carry no advertising and no pop ups, and the interactive parts work without JavaScript wherever that was possible. There is one bar along the bottom on a first visit, asking whether analytics may run, where refusing is the same single click as accepting and is remembered.
Do you track me?
Only if you let us. Google Analytics runs from September 2026, for the one question this page said it would be for, which records people want written next, and it is not fetched at all until you say yes. There is still no advertising network and no tracking pixel in a reply to an email. Our privacy page lists what it collects field by field and carries a switch that turns it off again.
Will you cover saltwater?
It has started, with two records, and the saltwater silo is kept out of search results until a third one lands, because a silo of two records is a claim rather than a reference. It is deliberately slow: a marine figure carried over from a freshwater habit is the most expensive mistake available here, so the pairing grid refuses a cross water comparison outright rather than estimating one.
How can I tell whether a page here is any good?
Check one field against its source. Every figure names where it came from, and a blank either names the sources that were checked or says outright that none is recorded yet. That is the test this site was built to pass, and it is the test almost nothing else in the category can be put through.
What this aquarium site is, stated as rows
Everything above this is an argument. This is the same thing as a table, because an about page that cannot be checked against the site is a page of adjectives.
| Claim | What it means in practice | Check it here |
|---|---|---|
| Every figure names a source | Each of the nine fields on a care record carries a note saying who published it | any record |
| Blanks are printed, not filled | A field with no source stays empty and says so, and most of them record which sources were checked instead | the otocinclus lifespan |
| Disagreements are printed, not averaged | Both figures appear with their sources; the field says which it carries | kuhli loach hardness |
| No figure is invented | No bioload percentage and no waste output, because nobody publishes them per species, and no filter rating, because the one source that publishes one states it for a 12 inch oscar in cubic feet of media and this tool answers for tanks of 5 to 29 gallons | the calculator |
| Refusals are traceable | A pairing marked never points at a source that says never | the pairing grid |
| We do not sell the animals | No livestock, no shop rankings, no affiliate figure inside a field | the method page |
| We are not a vet | Where a veterinary source names a condition we transcribe the list and print no treatment | the guppy health list |
| The gaps are named | Each silo publishes its own queue, and names every species in it we have not written | the plant silo |
Every row in that table is falsifiable in one click, which is the only kind of about page worth writing. If a claim in the left column is not true of the page in the right column, the claim is wrong and we would rather hear it than keep it.