@LangLangC I wouldn't say only echo chambers exist. But I would say that people tend to build echo chambers, and nutrition is an area where it seems to happen a lot. The problem with references is that it takes skill (and time) to assess strengths and weaknesses of a resource, especially studies.

As someone who came to this site under advice to ask nutrition based questions here, I can certainly say that having multiple nutrition tags is misleading if questions pertaining to just nutrition can be considered off topic. Furthermore a larger nutrition expert base will never be achieved here if nutrition only questions are dissuaded. Having unanswered nutrition questions will eventually attract people who wish to answer them. Not having any will not. The expert base will never grow or develop if questions on the topic are not asked in the first place.

@Aesir I do agree that we need to remove the tags if we're not going to include nutrition. That's why we're having this discussion, to determine how to make alterations to the site to reflect our scope. I also appreciate your thoughts, but the reality is that we have had scores of unanswered (or wrongly-answered) nutrition questions on here for the several YEARS that it's been in beta and STILL have not attracted sufficient experts in the subject to manage the sheer # of nutrition questions. It's just not sustainable.

This site is not like Overflow, where there are thousands of active experts, and wrong coding advice gets corrected in a hurry. There are too few experts here. And in health, if incorrect information is passed off as correct information, people can get hurt. We don't have the manpower to field nutrition questions as it is. They are often extremely difficult to answer, for the reasons above, as well as that often the questions are built on misinformed/misunderstood premises that would have to be corrected as well in order to even answer the question.

But this is a problem that presents itself in the field of nutrition as whole, as you yourself have stated. The field is full of misinformation and it is overwhelming when trying to find sufficient trustworthy information to make informed decisions. Nutrition good or bad has a direct impact on a persons medical measurable health and is related to an increased risk of disease and how the body functions. In my opinion it is a big oversight to just ignore the field because there isn't a big enough base. I understand the community is smaller than over exchange sites.

, but this shouldn't be seen as a limitation. This site has people, like you which could offer an insight into a topic. A good answer doesn't always have to be backed up with 1000 sources and an extensive medical trial. But if you as an individual have significant personal experience and can provide some insight into why never eating vegetables might have a correlation with zinc related deficiencies in the body then that question can be answered (for example). For a nutrition based question I came here to benefit from personal insight and experience of individuals not a study.

I agree with you that it's a problem. But it's not a problem we have the manpower to solve on our own. Read my second-to-last paragraph again. We wish we had the manpower for it, but we don't. And we don't want to become a repository of incorrect misleading information, either. We would rather not allow nutrition than to be a site where nutrition misinformation propagates.

That's where there's a fundamental difference in your understanding of the way that StackExchange and the medical field work. Insight and experience are insufficient. Clinical practice is evidence-based, not based on anecdotal experience and supposition. Evidence is required for a reason. Studies exist for a reason. Incorrect health information can lead to harm. That is why reliable references are required.

I understand your point of view and as someone who is not responsible for moderating the site I can't comment to the increased workload allowing nutrition to continue would have. All I can say is that I am of the opinion ignoring a topic which has an unarguable link to medical health (however misunderstood) is a wrong course of action and will only serve to damage the potential growth of the community. Again I can only say this as a new user however who came here to gain a better understanding of predominantly nutrition based topics, so I am biased.

I am the last person to want to exclude nutrition. It's like half of what I do. But we just don't seem to have the manpower at the time. I hope to have a large enough community for that to change one day.

Perhaps I do have a different understanding of how this site should be used, but I can use google. If I came here to ask a question it is because there is not sufficient information available online that I was able to find

I think that is where a website like this is beneficial to a user.

I would rather exclude it than be open to misinformation. It's hard as a newcomer to see the history of the site, but it's been a roughhhhh journey

If you look at other stack exchange websites they have users who answer based on mostly experience however

it seems very different here

Health is not like almost any other field

Of course but I go to my doctor for their experience in the field built over time, not really because I couldn't look up something to understand my illness online

Everyone has a "health" and their own thoughts/biases about health topics, so it is full of difficulties

I agree it needs to be strictly monitored and therefore must be incredibly difficult

but it is the reality that we don't want to provide a place for misinformation to flourish

Right. And there's the problem. We don't have the manpower.

but I want to benefit from the experience of knowledgable people here. I am able to use google myself or read a study. I don't have the insight to interpret results that an educated individual in the field would have.

That's not how this site works though

I came here to gain from that insight of knowledge and experience

It's not experience-based

I get that

Yes I see that now, still I think it is a shame

You're not wrong

It's just not how we're able to operate

I agree!

The site almost shut down

I think that should be made clearer, it is very confusing for me at the moment what I can and can't ask here and how to.

This is a last ditch effort to save it at all

We're in transition

Just happens that you joined in the middle of a major transition time

It comes across as much too difficult to use to be useful to anybody at the moment, I must say. It is probably bad timing on my part

I get that. Essentially right now we're trying to retain experts above all, since that is what we have so few of.

It isn't really clear to me as a newcomer that this site cannot be used like other stack exchange websites

What WOULD make it clearer?

We're working on making alterations to the site

We have disclaimers everywhere

Well saying something to that affect.

Something like

Did you look at the help files? Like how to ask etc?

yes hang on, I'm just writing something I would have found useful

You may be familiar with how other SE websites work. These are communities which are largely run by experienced individuals providing answers based on experience and or proven fact. Here at Medical SE we have a slightly different format due to the impact health related advice can have on an individual.

A question can only be answered using knowledge shown to be demonstrably true in the form of a study clinical trial etc. We are unable to answer questions that can only be answered based on professional experience and/or personal understanding of a field.

There is a lot of stuff about how to ask a question, that you cannot give personal medical adive

but there is nothing to say that you won't answer questions based on your experience in the medical field

saying we can't do personal diagnosis is fair enough I get that. but saying that you cannot provide an answer to me based on just personal experience is not clear. I have only just understood that now. and I have tried and it hasn't been enjoyable as a newcomer to use this website at all.

That is helpful, I will bring that to the group to review

so I get that you want to save the community and website and I think there are obviously knowledgeable people here who can help and I think it is worth having as a source of information

but the format that you want to have here as how the knowledge base should and shouldn't be used is different to other SE communities and this needs to be made clearer

I understand it now you have explained it too me, but many people would just give u[

*up

Different people have had different visions of what they want this site to be. It's gone through some major transitions ever since its inception in Area 51.

and not take it to the meta site to discuss

I get that for sure

and I feel this will lose users

Yes we're aware of that, unfortunately

anyway thanks for taking the time to explain that to me. It has helped me and I am sure the site will be more useful to me because of it

But again our consistent user base has been tiny for a long time

and we are just staying afloat at the moment as we try to transition

right now we are gearing the site towards professional-level questions

to try to encourage more expert involvement

for a longgggggggggggg list of reasons beyond the scope of this conversation

sure no worries. I understand now much better. I hope my suggestion is considered about being made to be more prominent. I must say it has been extremely frustrating trying to participate here to this point.

so right now we are not putting as much effort into guiding non-medical participants, since we have such limited manpower!

Will do thanks

As for the initial start of the topic. I still feel nutrition should be a valid topic, however and I hope it remains.

but I see now that it is a can of worms

hahaha yes

You as well