Site's scope discussion

Ivo Flipse

Aug 8, 2011 16:24

hi @Greg I was trying to @-message you, but there's too many Gregs

Greg

Hey, how goes?

Yeah, I've been noticing I'm not the only one... I guess I can't copyright my name

Ivo Flipse

Hehe, you can try ;-)

Greg

So hard to draw a clear definition - we either leave out good material or we let in some spurious topics

Ivo Flipse

Its a difficult situation, we could 'limit' the questions to questions about actually performing the exercise, so we don't have to start answering questions about shin-protectors in soccer or helmets in football

but that would mean the questions about running shoes and dumbbells are off too

Greg

Right

Ivo Flipse

Aug 8, 2011 16:28

If the site would be locked down to just a few branches of sports, we would start to compete among SE sites (if others ever launch), which I think is rubbish until we hit the size of Super User

Greg

Well two "meta" questions we have to consider are what the level of "experts" is that we want and whether we are willing to accept limited traffic to a more restrictive site.

Yes, agree that we don't want a bunch of similarly-scoped struggling SE sites

Ivo Flipse

Besides, you would get a question about running shoes on Soccer.SE, Running.SE and Tennis.SE

Greg

What would happen is that all those would start, go through beta, struggle, and eventually be killed or merged back together

Ivo Flipse

@Greg I can live with our expertise on Nutrition being mostly 'experience' based, as long as its related to exercise

I'm sure we can crowd source the validity when enough users with similar experiences are around

but when it would be about food allergies, well I think its no longer safe to assume we have the experience and knowledge to answer those questions

Greg

I agree with that

Ivo Flipse

Aug 8, 2011 16:31

or like those about lunulae

we all just start Googling our way to an answer, echoing the weird sites that advocate using product X or diet Y

Greg

So I think activities, both physical and nutritional, that address strength, endurance, and flexibility are core topics that should fit under any scope.

Ivo Flipse

But that doesn't change the fact that answering questions, like the one about skating are more difficult

Greg

The question is where to allow flexibility in that, in order to drive up site volume

Ivo Flipse

Now I have skated often enough, but I suck at braking myself. Any skate coach would probably cry when they read my answer

@Greg I always thought Fitness was meant as a generic term to describe anything exercise related

Sadly all the Area51 questions got deleted when they removed the old proposals

Greg

Right, but that's one of the issues with one of your concerns on the meta post - we don't have nutritionists, but we don't have skating coaches either.

@IvoF

bleh

Ivo Flipse

Aug 8, 2011 16:35

@Greg No, but that's why I think its important to at least have some experience in that area

Greg

Yeah, but I don't think Area51 is that important any more - the site is to be defined by those who use it, not those who proposed it

The guy who proposed it isn't even a member of the site AFAIK

Ivo Flipse

when the nutrition questions are limited to how they influence you getting/being fit, there's a good chance some of us have been in similar situations

Greg

Agreed

Ivo Flipse

@Greg I just wanted to point to Roberts discussion about the term Fitness

I wanted to call it something like Sports & Exercise (Physiology) I believe

but they made it more generic and added Nutrition to boot

Greg

Got a link handy?

Ivo Flipse

Aug 8, 2011 16:37

nope, it got deleted :(

can't even read it on my own profile :\

amazon.com/Physiology-Sport-Exercise-3rd-Jack-Wilmore/dp/…

Greg

Well there are linked problems here. First we have to come to a final agreement what the scope should be, then we come up with a name and FAQ material that communicates that scope well.

Ivo Flipse

I basically summed up that everything covered in this book would be a good scope

Greg

That's actually a very good summation of proper scope, I think, but leaves something to be desired from one-word.se.com marketability. :-)

Ivo Flipse

@Greg well that was my point, the book can be applied to pretty much anything sports related

Greg

Yes, applied, but it's not going to cover specifics of braking on skates or dunking a basketball, etc.

Building up the leg and ankle strength to do a proper brake would be on-topic.

Ivo Flipse

Aug 8, 2011 16:40

@Greg well I'd also think the book would be too scientific for most of our users

Greg

Sure, but we're not asking them to read the book. The desire on the site seems to be for people who are willing/able to read the science to put it in layman's terms and cite the science behind it.

Ivo Flipse

@Greg Grace Note is mailing me the contents of my Area51 answer, just to see what I said back then

Greg

@IvoFlipse Anyway, if we can restrict the scope of questions to having generally applicability across sports (i.e. no nutrition skeptics questions and no sport-specific techniques) then I think we're at a good place and just need a name that fits.

k

Ivo Flipse

@Greg I don't mind Fitness per se, but it should be clear that its not the softy term for ladies talking about how fit they are after Yoga

Greg

But there is always gray area. Is learning advanced nuances of deadlift technique appropriate, if they most apply to powerlifters (a sport)?

Ivo Flipse

Aug 8, 2011 16:45

brb, I need to dine (how appropriate)

Greg

@IvoFlipse Completely agree with that!

All right, ttyl

Ivo Flipse

@Greg I think questions regarding technique could be on-topic, but we'd need to figure out how to handle the 'lack of expert' aspect

I mean I can calculate what the best technique for a deadlift would be ;-)

Greg

@IvoFlipse It'd be like everything else here - secondhand experts. We cite a book by Pavel or Rippetoe.

Ivo Flipse

@Greg you've got mail :)

Greg

@IvoFlipse Yeah, I see that. Better than working! :-)

@IvoFlipse That's really a good list! I'd be happy to have this as the basis for the FAQ.

IMO, nutrition plays a bigger role in these items than the wording might suggest to someone less familiar with the science behind it, but I think that if nutrition is part of the right answer it will trickle up. It will certainly cut down on the obviously off-topic nutrition questions.

Basically, we want to reduce nutrition questions but should be fine with nutrition answers, if they are correct.

So the terms Wellness, Nutrition, Sports, Health all have negative implications for the questions we might get.

Fitness still feels like the closest we're going to get in one word. Exercise could be ok, but seems a little too limiting.

Ivo Flipse

Aug 8, 2011 17:06

@Greg Well Fitness is fine, but then it should be really clear 'how' this all fits in the grand scheme of things

Greg

I think we copy/paste your list right into the FAQ

Ivo Flipse

and that Nutrition is allowed should be obvious from the questions on the site and the FAQ, it doesn't need to be in the title

@Greg feel free to propose that as an answer on that Meta question ;-)

Greg

@IvoFlipse All right. I'll be sure to cite my source. ;-)

Ivo Flipse

Though I do see Training for Sport covers things like using the right technique, for when you are not familiar with it

nice loophole :)

Greg

Did that list come verbatim from the book, or did you paraphrase the bullet points?

Ivo Flipse

Aug 8, 2011 17:10

That's the index of the book

Greg

It could be a little "weird" if we copied the book's index word-for-word, however appropriate it might be

Ivo Flipse

Btw we should bookmark this conversation and put it in the comments of your answer

@Greg well we can paraphrase it off course

for example by adding 'example' questions

brb

Greg

Agreed, but it is really good just the way it is!

The Locker Room

Participants