Timeline for Consistency in trivia content
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:55 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://sports.stackexchange.com/ with https://sports.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 7, 2013 at 18:09 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| Apr 4, 2013 at 21:06 | comment | added | user527 | My question was answered. It opens eyes to the middle ground between too ambiguous and too specific. | |
| Apr 4, 2013 at 19:42 | comment | added | SocioMatt | @edmastermind29 That's good. I was a little worried I was writing this long post for nothing, and ultimately I don't know that I really answer your question. I feel weird closing every trivia question about a sport as open as bowling. Having said that, this may just be an issue where questions need to be massaged to ask a more specific question, like I've suggested. I feel like the scope of the question needs to be limited, not necessarily that the question itself is out of scope for the site. Questions need to better define what they're looking for so the possibilities aren't as large. | |
| Apr 4, 2013 at 19:38 | comment | added | user527 | The purpose of my question was to evaluate our current scope of allowing trivia questions. If we are going to allow trivia on Sports SE, it is important to be consistent on what we allow/don't allow. Yes, we are still in beta. An older question may have been "within scope" at that time it was asked may not be "within scope" now because we have further defined our scope. | |
| Apr 4, 2013 at 19:34 | comment | added | user527 | +1 Exemplary meta response. Above and beyond my expectations. | |
| Apr 4, 2013 at 17:22 | history | answered | SocioMatt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |