Can you please update or remove older outdated data?

Hey all,
I love the site. Helped me get a sick dragon back to health. I've studied these creatures with an intensity 10x what i ever did in my college studies. I keep running into a problem though. There are a lot of beardie "cat ladies" out there. That are stuck to data from a decade ago. A lot of it come from this site. Especially when it comes to UVB bulbs and things like frozen food. To my point an administrator on a popular FB group for beardies got in an argument with me over freezing vegetables for beardies. I was posting scientific studies from 2013. She was posting articles from this group from 2006. she told me the actualy university study wasn't credible and deleted the whole post. I run into the same issues with CFL and red heat lamps. People really are stupid. To validate their stupidity they look for things that align with their opinion. Oftentimes they cite this group because it is the leader in dragon ownership, but it is in desperate need of a little cleaning in the backlogs. IS there any way this site can purge data that is now incorrect? It seems every day this site is tagged for an article on how CFL cause blindness in dragons. ITs getting to be humiliating. There are a lot of smart people here. surely the site can be updated to reflect all that has changed in this world. At the least to get these empty nester former soccer moms to back off the rest of the herp community so a little knowledge can be gained.

Thanks for tolerating my rant, you do good work.

If there are articles that are drastically out of date, I can look into those. However, if it's the forum posts that people are referencing, we do not remove those. They are conversations and discussions. Much of it is opinion, or people working through ideas. Nothing in any forum should be considered authoritative by any means since the content is from the visitors of the site. That's not to say some info can't be authoritative, but it certainly should not be considered so base on the forum postings. Ideally, links and references to more substantiated data should be used.

Unfortunately, however, you will always encounter "old" information out there. Even here, I've seen numerous transitions (not always pretty) from different ideas of thought. When new substantiated data is brought up, it can take time for it to be accepted. The best way to address that is to provide references to updated studies. Noting, of course, a single university study does not inherently make an authoritative source, if one wants to get picky about the science of it. But in a field where there are so few studies to draw from, they're often (not always) better than not. I've known too many grad students to think that they should be automatically assumed to have reliable methods. All too often they're learning what it means to have good methods, and to do so, one often makes mistakes.

Anyway... I'd rather have articles to post as newer sources for information. Out of hundreds of thousands of posts, there's no way we could reasonably prune forum posts, even if we would want to do that. Again, forum posts are not removed because I believe in minimal censorship in conversational spaces, which is what a forum is. But again... point me to articles on the site, and I'd happily review them and compare them with other sources you may have.

I know that CFLs were a huge issue in the past. Honestly, I have no idea what current tests on current bulbs may show. If there are some good sources on that, I'd be happy to know of them, and to share them with the visitors of the site.