Bias Boogeyman? It’s Time to Face the Wolves Head-On!
When is bias helpful, and when does it cross the line into shilling or deceptive sales tactics?
Bias is everywhere in this hobby. Sometimes bias helps us learn faster. Sometimes it blinds us. The challenge is that reefing is small, passionate, and personal. We talk gear, organisms, methods, friendships, jobs, and sponsorships, and every one of those carries the potential to color judgment. Below we lay out the types of bias we see most, admit where we have messed up, share real examples, and give practical ways to see through the smoke and mirrors.
Note: Paid YouTube SR Members Using A Chrome Browser can watch videos natively above on Seriousreefs.com. Sign up HERE
SR videos are a community funded member only resource. Serious Reefs buys everything we review, accepts no sponsorships, and your memberships make it possible to keep every review truly unfiltered.
What we mean by "influencer"
Does anyone really want to be influenced by an influencer? Influence is everywhere. Every time we ask a question, read an article, or watch a video, we are being influenced. The real issue is not influence itself but intentional deception, which is where bias becomes a concern. The marketing world uses the word “influencer” when money or free products are involved, but the broader truth is simpler. If someone helps you make a decision, they are influencing. The real question is who do we allow to influence us, and whether you see their bias as a useful lens or something that undermines the value of their advice.
Common sources of bias and real-world examples
Bias shows up in many forms. Some are obvious, some are subtle. Here’s how we've seen them play out.
Free product bias
Getting free gear from a manufacturer can feel like validation, but it also creates an instant and often unconscious obligation to say something positive. That is the core of sponsorships—purchasing influence through the people who shape opinions.
Example: Early on I received a high-dollar piece of equipment simply for being in the right place. The company did not ask me to promote it, but of course I talked about it. When companies later send lots of product or help build labs, the gratitude and goodwill make it hard to be neutral about flaws.
Real dilemma: I tested a manufacturer's light and discovered a camera-visible flicker. The company later fixed it. Do I publicly spotlight the flaw that they already addressed? The ethical move is to talk to the manufacturer first and be transparent when reporting, but emotional and relational pressures complicate that choice.
Contrast: When another manufacturer’s light had thermal throttling issues, I reported it. If that same company had supplied huge resources to our operation, we might have handled the situation differently. That inconsistency is one of the things bias creates.
Experience and skill bias
Our own skillset and the problems we have solved shape what we recommend.
If we have decades of experience with controllers, skimmers, or dosing systems, our recommendations reflect that. Someone with five skimmers in their life might say "I do not know enough to advise you on skimmers" while another person with decades of testing will confidently recommend specific models.
Experience is valuable because it’s essentially repeated real-world testing. But it can also blind us to other valid approaches—especially when new products or techniques appear that have not been in our personal history.
Friendship and industry relationship bias
We all want to support friends. That’s human. But it creates the risk of letting friends’ products or ideas slide when they should be critiqued.
Example: A product from a friend that seemed miraculous later sparked questions about its contents. Our prior goodwill affected how willing we were to critique publicly.
The rule of thumb: afford friends the same scrutiny we afford large companies. Tell them privately first and give them the chance to correct problems, then be transparent with the rest of the community.
Budget bias
Budget drives decisions. Beginner budgets look very different than long-time hobbyists’ budgets, and that shapes what people recommend.
We all walked the DIY path. Once high-end, prebuilt gear became available it changed expectations. Those differences created snobbery on both ends—people ridicule budget setups, and budget reefers mock those who spend more.
Practical point: Pick a mentor or source that shares your budget reality. Advice is more useful when it’s targeted to the resources you actually have.
Action idea: We’re working on a beginner-focused series showing how to do reefing effectively on a realistic starter budget—thinking two thousand dollars as a reasonable starting point for a durable, successful system.
Employment and company affiliation bias
When someone works for or owns a company in the industry, their neutrality becomes suspect by default.
It is rare for an employee of a brand to publicly declare a competitor better. Even when the data would support it, the social and professional costs make that unlikely.
I’ve felt this firsthand. Working with retailers and manufacturers changed how people interpreted my opinions. Even honest data-driven tests were sometimes dismissed as biased because of perceived affiliations.
Practical consequence: disclosure and data transparency become essential. If you work for an industry company, tell people. If you are reviewing a product from your employer, make that clear and let viewers/readers see the raw data.
Respect for animals (pet tuber pressures)
Audience growth, content demands, and the desire for attention have pushed some creators into setups that do not prioritize animal welfare. That is a serious ethical problem.
We have seen creators add animals or tanks because it boosts views, then fail to maintain them long-term. When animals disappear from footage without explanation, that raises red flags.
We tried a project that intentionally focused on animal biology and longevity. The result was outstanding but astronomically expensive—tanks costing tens of thousands of dollars to build and maintain. That is not scale-friendly for most hobbyists and can unintentionally make ordinary reefers feel left behind.
Takeaway: prioritize simple, affordable practices that protect animals—regular maintenance cycles, realistic stocking, and managing expectations about complexity and cost.
Purchase defense and conclusion defense bias
Once people buy something or commit to a conclusion, they will defend it. That is normal human behavior.
Purchase defense: people rationalize a purchase to avoid feeling wrong. This is why discussions over lights, pumps, and skimmers can get defensive.
Conclusion defense: we remembered strongly committing to dry rock to avoid pests. Later experience showed trade-offs—dry rock created other problems in high-energy SPS systems. Admitting the nuance later felt like backtracking, but it was just learning.
Mentor bias
Who we learn from shapes how we reef. Mentors—online, local, or professional—matter.
Good mentors gave us frameworks grounded in data. Randy Holmes-Farley and Dana Riddle are examples of fact-based influences many of us respect.
But mentorship works best when the mentor's life circumstances align with yours. Ask: does this mentor understand your budget and goals?
Vet mentors this way: do they answer "for you" or "for me"? If their answers are personalized ("for you, given X, try Y"), that’s a sign they are thinking about your situation.
Desire for celebrity and audience-driven bias
Creators chase attention. That can warp content choices toward sensationalism, quick lists, or repeating trends that rank well.
We have produced easy, high-view formats that didn't always match our original mission. It worked for growth but cost some authenticity.
Being recognized and getting messages from people who say the work mattered is powerful and good. That positive feedback can outweigh the negatives, but creators must resist making choices only to chase clicks.
The AI Edge example - bias in full view
We’ll be blunt about an active, personal example: a new hobby light that many of you have asked about.
Personal history with the brand: one of our first lights was from this company. It helped shape my view of what a lighting app and interface could be, so I’m naturally biased in its favor.
Ownership and involvement: I hold a small, single-digit ownership stake and were part of early conceptual discussions. That creates the highest possible conflict of interest when evaluating the product.
Design affinity: the light includes features we love—thin profile, specific lensing to give a blended fill plus a shimmer cluster reminiscent of other favorite lights. It aligns with our aesthetic and functional preferences, which increases emotional bias.
So what should we do? Ignore it and let others test it? Test it and disclose our stake? We see three responsible options:
Do not test and avoid commentary, but that robs the community of insights we can offer based on decades of lighting tests.
Test and be fully transparent: disclose ownership, explain our role in development, publish raw data (PAR, spectrum, distribution), and separate data from opinion so others can judge for themselves.
Encourage independent replications: publish our methods so multiple teams can reproduce measurements, and aggregate the results for a less biased assessment.
We favor option 2 combined with 3: transparency plus rigorous data-sharing. If we test this light, we will be explicit about our bias, show the raw numbers and charts, and clearly label our interpretation as opinion backed by experience. That lets you, the reader, make an informed decision..
Practical guidance for creators and consumers
For creators and retailers who want to do right by the hobby:
Be transparent about product relationships and ownership stakes immediately.
Publish raw data and testing methods when comparing gear.
Make animal welfare a first principle. Prioritize care over spectacle.
Be honest about your budget and recommend options that people can actually follow.
Keep mentorship humble: tailor advice, admit unknowns, and point people to resources they can replicate.
For hobbyists looking for trustworthy advice:
Favor sources that show failures as well as successes.
Ask specific questions and see if answers are personalized or generic.
Don’t be afraid to aggregate: read multiple reviews, check raw measurements, and compare independent testers.
Remember that most people in the hobby are well-intentioned. Use skepticism, not cynicism.
Closing thoughts
Bias is the boogeyman people love to wave around, but the reality is simpler and less sinister: most of us are trying to help. The problem arises when influence, money, friendships, or job ties go unacknowledged. We owe each other more transparency, more data, and more honesty about what we don’t know.
We will keep sharing what we learn, including our mistakes and the messy parts behind the scenes. We will disclose relationships and show how we test things so that you can interpret the results for your own tank. If you want to trust someone, ask whether they show their work and whether their advice matches your reality. That is the best defense against the bias boogeyman.
Trust is earned by showing work, admitting failure, and helping people make better decisions for their tanks and animals.
Acknowledgments
Thank you to the Serious Reefs community. Your membership funds the creation of articles and videos like this one.
Support Serious Reefs
Patreon is the best option If you…
Want to discuss with the SR community and ask questions.
Want immediate notifications of every release.
Listen with phone screen off. Patreon app works with phone closed
Want 25% off via annual discounts.
YouTube members is the best option If you…
Watch SR videos on a TV via youtube App
Want to watch videos natively here on seriousreefs.com - (You must use chrome browser and be logged into google account with youtube membership)
Are a YouTube power user.
Tell a friend. Best option if want more (and faster).
If you like what we’re doing, give SR a quick shout-out on your favorite forum, YouTube, Facebook, TikTok, or Instagram. Let your local fish store know SR is helping you explore the hobby and keep it fun. Thanks for the support!
Disclaimer
Full Disclaimer HERE. This is the gist of it.
Content is based on personal experience, not professional advice. Do your research and reef responsibly. Serious Reefs should not be your sole source of information on any topic.
By watching, you agree that Serious Reefs and its creators aren’t liable for how you use this info. Please don’t utilize our information if you are not ok with this.
Serious Reefs has no sponsors, doesn’t accept product or payment for reviews. We do use affiliate links in articles that earn a small commission to support our work. Shop wherever you like, we won’t be offended.
