DISCLAIMER: I do reflect some opinion to present the following points
Do you see a pattern of questions that should have been closed but are
Not to say these questions should be closed or not. These types of questions below have been a topic of discussion in Sports SE meta:
The wide scope is a factor in determining what questions from this category are good and not so good. One rule of thumb is to not promote discussion. Questions that do will be considered not constructive.
We will continue to monitor the questions as they come and make a judgment call if necessary...because, as previous discussions state, setting guidelines for these types of questions may not be as clear-cut or possible as we would like. However, these questions present good research and answer potential.
The following questions are borderline:
What factors could have contributed to the fall of the Oakland Raiders?
What factors could be accounted for Liverpool FCs lack of success in EPL in the recent years?
Although they are speculative in nature, they do offer an opportunity to quasi-objectively quantify in approximate (not exact -- could be many correct answers if so) context what could have contributed to such scenarios. (eg, one does not go $1 million into debt without contribution to his scenario...)
The narrow scope is a factor in determining if trivia questions are constructive on Sports SE altogether. We have had cases (1) (2) in which trivia content consistency was pointed out. One trivia question was allowed and upvoted and another similar trivia question was closed and downvoted. That said, will we allow trivia full-blown or not at all? Not being consistent will continue keeping trivia on the fence in that regard.
Questions we must ask ourselves about the constructiveness of trivia questions are:
- Is it useful?
- Is it reasonably scoped?
Example: Expo who remained longest with the Nationals
- Useful? This is a piece of history in regards to the Expos/Nationals. Does this extend to baseball in general?
- Reasonably scoped? The scope narrows down to Expo players who remained with the Nationals after 2004.
The Montreal Expos' final season was in 2004. They relocated and became the Washington Nationals and started play in 2005.
Example: Jersey number for Kobe Bryant
- Useful? This is a piece of history in regards to Kobe Bryant. Does this extend to basketball in general?
- Reasonably scoped? The scope narrows down to Kobe Bryant wearing #8 and #24.
Example: What is the longest winning streak in tennis with a player not dropping a single game
- Useful? This is a piece of tennis history all inclusive.
- Reasonably scoped? The scope includes all tennis players of all documented tennis disciplines. The answer is a women's singles wheelchair tennis player.
Questions or answers that could use an edit?
If any edits are to be made, it is for clarity, detail, grammar, or quality sake. The community has done well helping one another out in this regard.
Anything that's going really well?
See previous question.
cricket questions have been taking off on Sports SE, and a core userbase for these questions has emerged. This is encouraging in terms of content and activity.
Overall, the core userbase does tend to revolve every 6-8 weeks. However, as Sports SE is becoming more established, I am familiar with who regularly contributes and attest that the revolution of core userbase is becoming less and less noticeable.
Meta participation has been active as of late. I do encourage users to utilize meta more often, especially to request clarity and understanding of Sports SE and to "gauge" the community with an idea/feature.
Other than questions/day, our stats on Area 51 is respectable for where we are currently at in Sports SE beta. We are close to having 150 avid users and are averaging around 1300 visits/day.
Keep it up, Sports SE community!