I've tried to add one to my list at least 3 times. Everything loads and saves correctly but it won't show up in my list. Any ideas?
Always check the Global Combined first. I'm sure I've screwed up classifying some of these critters.
I was thinking a bar across the top of the lifelist page, with all the different permutations linked in it, and then the definitions below that. That way no one has to scroll down to get the kind of lifelists they want to see, no matter which one it is.
Redhorse ID cheatsheets, gars, suckers: moxostoma.com
2019: 16 days fishing 25 species 7 lifers. 2018: 39/40/5 2017: 49/52/14
I wrote forty thousand lines of code over six months trying to accomodate everyone. There are fifty different database tables tracking all of these species. The Global Combined Lifelist was an afterthought. It is for the jet-set folks who don't have the time or skill to catch all of the fish species where they live. Yes, the system I created is able to track an infinite number of species in an infinite number of categories. But the core and heart of roughfishing is about opening your eyes to the fish that you can catch in your own backyard. It's not about the jet-set angler who can slip off to the Marquesas to catch Blueface Hamlets, it's about the guy who has never caught a sucker or a bullhead and who thinks such fish are valueless. The guy or girl who wants more out of fishing than the TV fishing stars and the superficial rich-man's illusion of hiring guides to catch fish for you or paying two grand for a fishing trip.
Most people have no interest in the Global Combined Lifelist. It's there because I happen to be able to build it. I'm happy to accomodate folks who wish to track their species here, because no other site can do it. Why? Because it's fiendishly complicated and difficult to program. But is it interesting? Is it fun? Do you learn anything from it?
No. The lifelists are organized the way they are because I want them to be that way, and the user base wants them to be that way. If you want to be at the top of the list, you must learn your home waters. You must learn how to catch the species of fish you live near, every day. You must open your eyes to the fish in your home waters. That is what this website is for. I know the regions are very broad - and I'm willing to change that! I would love to have seperate lifelists for every nation and state. The core element of this philosophy is that it makes angling skill the paramount determination of rank. This can only be accomplished by regional lifelists.
To reiterate, the Global Combined Lifelist is a catch-all-category. It was added simply because it has never been done before, and because people wanted to track their esoteric catches. It does not, and will not, change what this website is about. The Global Combined Lifelist is not important. It's the least important part of the site.
When we add printable lifelist posters, we'll include the Global Combined. But the Global Combined is a poor representation of an angler's life-work. If you disagree, I'd love to hear your arguments, and feel free to post them.
I was thinking of the word global in its other sense, as "complete," not as geographic. So I kept clicking that one because I wanted to be sure I was seeing whole lifelists without accidentally leaving out some subcategory.
40K lines? Jeez! Check out the attention span on Corey!
The whole thing is really impressive. I like the idea that you did something so intensive for this relatively tiny branch of the fishing world that no one has ever done before. Eat that, walleye fan sites!
The new site rocks! I'll admit that I was thrown off by the lifelist organization for a second but then I realized that it made perfect sense for this site. Standard lifers in your area --> micro lifers in your area --> everything everywhere. Better than the lumped together of the last site and better than the state-by-state of the verison before that (in my opinion).
What might be cool for the next verison (verison 6? I lost count) would be if you could select what region the species was caught in, with a check box or something. For example, I've caught Northern Pike in the Midwest but in the current site my northern pike shows up in the West, Europe, etc - even though I've never been to Europe or caught Pike in the West. Not asking for a change in this verison, just thinking that might be cool in the next verison.
Anyway, thanks for all the hard work - truely impressive for something you do in your free time. Now head out fishing and test out that 80lb braid on some sharks!
Yes, but what you fail to see is the perspective of the casual angler. You and I are fanatics, and can pontificate about the philosophy of fishing. But new anglers, hobby anglers, or those for whom angling is a distant third or fourth hobby, see the sport in a very different light. What this site tries to do is to make angling more interesting, and less intimidating to the casual angler. Yes, we fanatics can pore over arcane books about esoteric species and plan trips to destinations far and wide - but making that sort of thing the focus of the site leaves very little to talk about. That sort of thing is what turns people off on fishing as a sport. Roughfishing - essentially, fishing for all species using your own wits and skill, should be something that anyone can do, and hell if I'm going to make it seem harder for people who want to do it.
This is why I've resisted the whole "Global Lifelist" idea in the past - it makes new anglers, young people, and casual anglers look at the site and say "Who cares? I'll never do any of that." The point is - why bother to learn how to catch a highfin carpsucker in the river down the road when you can just pay $2000 to catch an Amur Pike? My system makes the carpsucker more valuable. The Amur Pike doesn't count in your lifelist of the South, or North America. That's why you go after it.
I don't know what your point about "categorizing" species is, maybe you missed the part where we created this website to celebrate all species.
The point is, there are a million books, magazines, and websites about fabulous fishing trips to anyplace you care to name. If this site were to become one of those, it would wither and die, because that stuff is much better covered by successful publications with a long, storied heritage of catering to that crowd. Pick any fishing magazine off the rack at your local sporting goods store and flip through it. GUARANTEED TARPON ONLY $3000! AS MANY WALLEYES AS YOU WANT TO CATCH ONLY $2000! KING SALMON BONANZA WITH FIVE-STAR DINING $6000 PER WEEK! Right there, that's what we're trying to avoid. That's why this site is different. I'm sorry if you can't understand that.
Which is not to say that you can't write an interesting roughfishing story about catching esoteric fishes in exotic locations! Look at Cast-and-Blast's work. Look at Hengelaar's work. These guys get it.
Your point about guides is half-right. I hire guides for open-ocean fishing for pelagics myself, because the marinas generally won't rent you a boat for that. It's fun, but it's not really the same. I've been out with a lot of guides, and I enjoyed my time fishing with them. But you get so much more out of the experience when you actually learn how to find the fish yourself, risking complete failure, and see the fruits of your labor brought to the light of day. And while it might have taken some skill to catch your fish on a guided trip, there's no way to know that, because millions of people who have never fished before and have absolutely no skills at all routinely make impressive catches fishing under a guide. I urge people to forego the guide whenever possible, because you only get one chance to catch a lifelister. You want to get the most out of the experience, because you can never do it again. I hate the fact that I caught my first snook fishing under a guide. Years later, I went out and did it on my own, and it was much more meaningful. But that first fish will forever be my lifer.
I have more to say, but I have a feeling I'm not communicating well right now. I think you want this website to be something that it's not. I'm sorry if that's the case, but I'm not going to change course and piss off all of my friends, acquaintences, and devoted users by making this just another cookie-cutter clone of Sport Fishing Magazine.with some extra species thrown in. I welcome your comments and criticism.
I thought about that, and the idea is very attractive, but it was going to make everything a lot more complicated. Let's push that off for the time being and work with what we've got.
I push the regional thing to hammer home the idea that every species is important. I'm totally up for adding new regions, too, or discussing better ways to divide them up. But I really like having different people comparing themselves against their fellow anglers in a geographical context.
It would be even more interesting if Doc Flathead just weren't so goddamn good. :-)
As it stands, I think we're okay. We retain the awesome ability to score important lifers in our area, but we just added the ability to score lifers anywhere. I think it's the best of both worlds.
Also - LOVE your signature Tony!
I think we understand each other. In the end, it's all about fun. I sometimes lose sight of that!
But I would really to se the fish count for the regional list only if it was caught in that region. For example I caught a Bowfin here in Florida but I don't think it should be listed on my Northeast list. Bowfin are very common in Florida but a rare beast in the Northeast! I seems like cheating to me to fill a slot on a regional list by going to a different region where the species is more common. The same is true for species that occur in freshwater and saltwater. I would not want a salmon caught in the Great Lakes to count as a saltwater catch.
Of course this would require everyone add locations for all of their catches but people should be doing this anyway because location is so important for accurate taxonomic identifications. People tend to think of species as static catagories but in reality those catagories are constantly changing as we develop new technigues and get more samples. When taxonimic changes are made, if you don't have the actual specimen to examine, often the only way to determine the correct ID is by locality. For example, the Notchlip Redhores is now considered distinct from the Silver Redhorse, and although they are mophologiclly distinct, you can't acuaratly tell them apart just based on photographs. You need locality information to be sure.
We often lose sight in our requests of "small" and "large" changes we'd like to see of admin, that this is first and foremost their baby, their site. I know this more than anyone, I kindly suggested a small tweak to a fishing forum I very rarely frequent (you'll see why soon), I was told it wasn't my website, I should keep my mouth shut and if I don't like it, move along and thats the "nice" version of it. That fishing website was all about the $$$. They claim to want to help the reputation of catfishing, but really the owner was just looking for a new niche to make quick and easy $$$.
The ultimate point i'm getting at is, we don't contribute $ to roughfish.com, its literally a heaven on earth for me, its my favorite website and since the recent changes I frequent it more than I frequent facebook....
While I respectfully disagree with Corey's opinion on roughfishing, although I totally understand where hes coming from and what hes trying to do with this site, we should all be very grateful for what we're given and remember this is his hard work on display here, if he wants global lifelists at the bottom, they sit at the bottom, we should be happy they're even there to begin with.
As for the philosophy of fishing. I understand the guide hate, many of my fishing buddies outright refuse to use guides. However I look at it this way, my fishing buddy hooked me up with my first carp, is he not nothing more than an unpaid guide? My father who took me to my first fishing spot when I was a kid, was he not a guide? Species I couldn't possibly have the talent or time to pursue unfortunately have to be "guided out" .$ speaks, and not everyone operates out of the kindess of their heart and despite all the research in the world, not everyone can afford boats or the optimal gear. Yeah, rich people can buy a lifelist and lose site of the hard work and dedication, but I say, thats their loss if thats what they choose to do, let them. I also understand trying to convert people into roughfishing, when I fish locally, most of my fishing consists of suckers, eels, and cats. I look at this website as more of a celebration of our niche and as much as i'd like the people who bank suckers to be converted, I don't care if they find a new found appreciation for that sucker for nothing will abolish that past ignorance, I'm happy with this group of people on this website, who appreciated roughfish without being showed how. I hope my remarks didn't seem argumentative, if they did please do not take them as such.
I do like to share my opinions, but remember that's all it is ... an opinion. I like to hammer the guide thing from time to time because I just wish more people had that can-do attitude that comes from striking out on your own. It's not a big deal, really, I just feel bad when people say "I'm going fishing so I need a guide." I wish people would ask themselves whether they in fact really do need a guide .... if the answer is yes, then hire one. Sometimes it's necessary.
As for the seperate regions, it's possible but not likely in the short term. The programming would be a nightmare, and there's no way to prevent people from filling up all the regions. And the point about indistinguishable species ... well, that's a real struggle. Tyler and I have had some long discussions about how the term species has been drifting away from the classical definition and, in the process, losing all meaning. It's not likely to stop anytime soon, and this site will always lag behind the latest DNA findings and newly-split species.
I know exactly what you mean. I fished for a species locally it took me 20 trips and I still persisted, it was the happiest day of my life when it finally reached my feet, something that could of been guided out for $200, i spent that in gas, nevermind time! Its a feeling unparreled.
This has been a very interesting thread to read and I wanted to add a few thoughts.
1. Regarding the ranking of lifelists...
First, I really enjoy the new lifelist system and I believe it is set up in a way that can accomodate almost everyone. I think the automatic ranking of the lifelists is cool and I personally find it interesting to see how I rank against my fellow roughfishing friends, but I sincerely hope that people don't get too hung up on the competitive aspect. A major reason I keep a lifelist is that I can look back at the pictures and remember the adventures I had catching each new species. I feel that a lifelist is a very personal thing and that a lifelist should be kept as a record of ones fishing accomplishments as well as an ongoing project that adds a little extra motivation to try for new species (which for me often leads to experiences that go beyond just fishing, as I travel to new places and meet people I never would have met otherwise).
I sincerely hope that the ranking system does not discourage new anglers because they feel "too far behind" in the rankings. The goal is not to be number one, but rather to spend more time outside, have fun, and to strive for a more holistic appreciation of our awesome natural world, and of fish in particular!
2. Why I like the global combined lifelist...
Corey, I appreciate that you've included the option to create and veiw global combined lifelists. I clearly understand your philosophy that roughfishing should be more about exploring all the species around you than spending a lot of money travelling and potentially hiring guides to rack up species fast by skimming easy-to-catch species from the enormously diverse global species pool.
Although it is not the point of this website, I appreciate being able to veiw high quality images of other anglers' exotic and micro species. The photos that some users have put up are among the best that exist for some of these species (especially some of the micros and esoteric species) and a secondary perk of the global lifelist is being able to see quality fish pictures of fish that I knew little or nothing about. I've learned a lot about fish just from seeing what other people have caught and where they've caught it.
I personally prefer to look at the global lifelist view because I like to see all of an anglers catches together in one place, but I agree that if you want to make any competitive comparisons among anglers the regional lists are probably the most accurate measure of skill. I also agree that there is something to be said for the sense of accomplishment you get from catching new species in an area you've fished hard your whole life. It's a richer experience than just pulling new species off a coral reef on a vacation, although I think that sort of fishing is also fun and definitely worthwhile. That's why I like that the new roughfish.com lifelist system allows the user to choose their own balance between depth and breadth when building or viewing a lifelist.
Finally, I also like that micros are now included. While you can catch a bunch of new micro species fairly quick, once the common ones are lifelisted it becomes much more difficult to pursue the less common micros and in my opinion figuring out where to find and how to catch tricky micro species can be just as fun and challenging as some of the larger fish.
Thanks for your hard work!