My hot take: There is filtration for "normal fishkeepers", filtration for scapers, and then theres filtration for hardcore plant/CO2/fertilizer enthusiasts.
..but it is adjusted quite low 
The filter should be fine, just think of it (and all <"other external filters">) as a <"pump in a bucket">.
Yes, that is the important bit. <"Plant / microbe biofiltration"> is much more efficient than "microbe only" biofiltration and that means that only a relatively <"small volume of filter media"> is required.
I'll be honest, I'm not a fan of any fine <"mechanical filtration media in the filter body"> or of any chemical filtration media really. As the others have said, if they work? They are really just sticking plasters . Have a look at <"Seachem Clarity">.
I'd try with the finer sponge pre-filter and see what happens. I'm going to guess that things will improve over time whatever you do.
That is a <"real problem"> for me. A total lack of honesty <"or transparency">.
You may not get as much <"sticky biofilm as you expect">. One advantage of <"floating cell media"> is that it is designed to shed excess biofilm.
I agree totally, but let's see the truth: It's largely the customers' fault. As long as all that magic sells well, nothing will change.
You are right, but I'm not sure you can always <"blame the customer">. It is true that the issue is that customers keep buying useless products, the problem is how do you work out whether a product is:
Hi... whilst you are not wrong in what you say as that is the nature of industry... it takes time and dedication to really learn a subject inside out, assuming the consumer is able to cut through the bull and find objective information in a world of contradictory opinions.
@alex_l , that is the heart of it.
This is something I could talk about for hours lol! I'm a trainer and behaviourist as well as working full time and studying plus looking after my own 5 dogs so learning via this forum is ideal. I've found that a lot of "known truths" are questioned here by the folk who know how to do that scientifically and it saves me a lot of time sifting through the BS on other fora. In the training/behaviour world we're up against the misinformation still spread by people who watched Cesar Millan 20 years ago or those that follow certain social media names on FB or TikTok...
In this, I disagree with @dw1305 a bit. I don't quite like his assessment that "plants filter the water". It is true that plants' presence and activity improve conditions in a tank. Yet most of the cleaning-filtering job is performed by microbes. Plants and microbes have positive effects on each other, so plants truly help. But if we realize that it's organic matter which is actually the source of pollution and dirt, then plants do not remove it, they take up mineral nutrients. Plants deliver oxygen, which is very needed by microbes and all living creatures, and provide extremely suitable habitat for microbes within their rhizosphere - providing settlement surface, saccharids and other organic exudates, and again, oxygen. Still, it's microbes who filter the water, by decomposing organic matter into mineral compounds.
No, I think I agree with you. Plants improve water quality <"by removing nutrient ions">, they are <"massively net oxygen producers"> and they create condition for <"greater microbial activity">, but with the exception that they may act as detritus traps (like mosses often do) they don't perform any mechanical filtration.
That is the bit that really interests me. Dissolved oxygen is the thing that matters, because it allows the microbes to <"more fully decompose food items">, including those that are comprised of <"structural carbohydrate"> and that offer <"very little nutrient">.
