TL;DR - Our close reasons should be in line with what we define in the help center and through discussions on meta. Moreover, for our new users, non-descriptive close reasons do not help them. They, most likely, posted a question without much knowledge as to how Sports SE and the SE Network works as we know it.

Take a look at the following close reasons below. If you agree that the close reason is adequate, please upvote. If you feel that the close reason isn't adequate or is disputable, please downvote. With all reasons, a comment about how and why it would be adequate or not is much appreciated. I provided some (but definitely not all) considerations to ponder (initially as counter arguments to the reasons given, but I found it more helpful to provide considerations to support/counter the close reasons given -- the answers have been updated to reflect this).

Also, it is possible we may have to redefine/further define our scope. We're still in beta, and this may serve as a way to do that.

  • This evaluation has come to a close. – user527 Mar 7 '16 at 13:37

https://sports.stackexchange.com/questions/12578/how-well-do-you-know-your-super-bowls: What two fairly common occurrences have NEVER happened in any Super Bowl? (one is VERY common, and the other occurs at least 2-3 times a year)

"I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because trivia type questions are off topic here."

Some considerations: The tag, this meta discussion on quiz questions.

Note: The original close voter agreed semantically, just used different terminology (ie, "trivia" - which is on topic) to describe his reasoning.

  • I think "too broad" would have been a better close reason here because of the way it was posted. 2-3 times a year could be almost anything, and I could imagine a long list of joke answers arising. Had the question been posed as "Has there ever been a XXX in the superbowl" maybe it could have been kept as a useful trivia question. – Fillet Dec 17 '15 at 10:03
  • 2
    @Fillet There are two exact and only two exact answers to this question...so broadness isn't the issue (the joke answers wouldn't answer the question correctly anyway and would be downvoted and/or deleted). Your revision works, and considering we have addressed "quiz questions" before, we had a reason to reference when closing this question. – user527 Dec 17 '15 at 13:43
  • 2
    OK, I get it now. I first thought that the issue was with the topic of trivia, but now understand that the issue is the "quiz style phrasing", and that we are effectively voting on "off topic because of a quiz-style question". I will try to reverse my downvote. – Fillet Dec 17 '15 at 16:13

https://sports.stackexchange.com/questions/12594/first-airsoft-gun: I am looking to get my 10 year old son an airsoft gun for target practice etc. I was for something along the lines of a Daisy Red Ryder BB gun. Any suggestions?

"I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because shopping questions are generally off topic across the whole Stack Exchange network."

Some considerations: let's go shopping blog post.

  • 3
    This is pretty much a perfect example of a bad shopping question from "Let's go shopping" - it's overly personal and any answers are very likely to be out of date next year when different models are on the market. If it could be changed into "What should I be looking for when buying a first Airsoft gun for a 10 year old?" then that would be a good question where we could focus on the characteristics of the products rather than what happens to be on the shelves today. – Philip Kendall Dec 17 '15 at 11:41

enter image description here

I just got a Fulltilt snowboard and I can't find any info on it. Can anyone tell me how much it's worth?

"I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because we're not a snowboard shop."

Some considerations: not descriptive to a new user (ie, why is the fact that we're not a snowboard shop a reason for closure?), this meta discussion on research of a video

  • 1
    +1 for closing, but if we take the approach from superuser: "Shopping, buying or product recommendations are off-topic" then we would have a ready-made reason without any room to be interpreted as being sarcastic. – Fillet Dec 17 '15 at 10:17
  • 1
    Photography has/had a fairly large problem with shopping questions, and the custom close reason we have there is "Questions seeking specific product or service recommendations, where the answer is likely to be either entirely personal or short-lived as a result of changing markets, are off topic here. Please rephrase your question to describe the problem you're trying to solve or what you do not understand that prevents you from determining the answer yourself." This is good because it changes the question from "what should I personally buy" to (cont...) – Philip Kendall Dec 17 '15 at 11:38
  • ... "how should someone else facing the same issue work out what to buy?" which is much more likely to be useful a) for a different person and b) in a few years when Fulltilt or whoever else have gone bust. – Philip Kendall Dec 17 '15 at 11:39
  • Both revised close reasons would work. "how should someone else facing the same issue work out what to buy?" is exactly how we should handle equipment recommendations. This question about finding a similar tennis racket has lots of potential if those comments were turned into answers (see this meta discussion on equipment recommendations). – user527 Dec 17 '15 at 13:47
  • 1
    I agreed with the action of closing, I just found the close reason not helpful for the new user (although it is understood by we, the community). – user527 Dec 23 '15 at 13:23
  • 3
    The closing verbiage was in no way helpful. Part of closing involves taking a moment to help the OP be successful. If you want to keep spending the time closing the same users questions then verbiage is effective. If you want to teach them how to use a QA site then them something more meaningful is in order. If you want the Beta to be successful then even some kindness and understanding and helpfulness is in order because hey, new users will make the beta successful. – Citizen Jan 25 '16 at 22:14
  • 1
    @Citizen I completely agree. I started this evaluation because I felt some reckless closing was taking place, so I brought it forth to the community. Actually, this question was the reason I started to consider doing this evaluation. – user527 Jan 26 '16 at 0:48
  • 1
    @Citizen "If you want to keep spending the time closing the same users questions then verbiage is effective." I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you trying to say that verbiage isn't effective if the same users' questions are getting closed? – user527 Jan 26 '16 at 0:50
  • 1
    @ᴍᴀsᴛᴇʀᴍɪɴᴅ_ᴇᴅ It's a good example of 'close hammer' fervor. We experienced it in Motor Vehicle a bit too. Now the community is providing more guidance to OP's and it seems it's affecting the return rate of regular users. We're close to graduation over there. A lot of new governance methods and newer ideologies have come into play. It's been good for the site. Unbelievably good. – Citizen Jan 26 '16 at 0:52
  • @Citizen Thanks for the insight! – user527 Jan 26 '16 at 0:54
  • @ᴍᴀsᴛᴇʀᴍɪɴᴅ_ᴇᴅ "If you want to keep spending the time closing the same users questions then verbiage is effective." I meant, if your trying to drive the OP away communicating with them that way, then the words your picking are probably very effective. Passive aggressive on sarcastic validation with my statement. Probably a poor choice of words on my part. :-) – Citizen Jan 26 '16 at 0:54
  • @Citizen Okay, I see. The way I read it, I thought you misspoke, but now I see where you're coming from :) – user527 Jan 26 '16 at 0:56

Is there a place to get timing stats for historic games?: I am specifically interested in how much stoppage time was added to each half of a football game, for the major leagues, usually the first division in each country. An example list can be found here: http://www.espnfc.com.au/scores?date=20150809. For example, on that date, in the match between Salmohr and Bochum there was definitely stoppage time as a goal was scored at (90+1), but no where in the espn site can I find out exactly how much time was added in each half.

"I'm voting to close this question as requests for sources/research are off-topic on Sports SE"

Some considerations: What is a "source" request?, This meta discussion on research of a video, the help center - "Some kinds of questions should NOT be asked here: ... Requests for sources/research"


Send MapMyRun data to Runkeeper: I've been using MapMyRun for a few years now, generally it's ok stats wise but is pretty horrible to use. So looking to move all my data from it to Runkeeper, is there a way this can be done? Ideally it would be great if all the runs I have completed in MapMyRun are replicated in Runkeeper, is that even possible?

"I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it's about tech, not sports"

Some considerations: The tag, this meta discussion, this very similar question with 15 upvotes.

Note: The OP did state that he would "have voted to close or transfer that one too if I'd seen it." At least consistency exists there.

  • My concern here was that we're closing a question that is very similar to a previous, well received question. If we're going to consider one off topic for this reason, we might as well consider the other off topic as well for the same reason (maybe historically lock it?). – user527 Dec 23 '15 at 13:26

https://sports.stackexchange.com/questions/12615/what-are-the-allowable-odds-you-can-bet-on-with-betfair: Betfair only allows you to place back/lay bets at certain odds. E.g. something like 2.0152 would not be an available odds to place a bet on. What is the full list of allowable odds?

"I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it's not a question specifically about sports."

Some considerations: The tag, another question only about Betfair.

  • If we're going to consider one off topic, we might as well consider the other off topic as well. We have allowed questions about betting before...perhaps those kind of questions should be more in line about how sports betting works and understanding how to do it. – user527 Dec 23 '15 at 13:42

American Buying AC Milan Tickets: I'm traveling to Milan in April and noticed that AC Milan is playing Carpi during the time I am there. The official AC Milan website does not have any tickets available (http://tickets.acmilan.com/en/tickets_purchase) so it looks like I will likely have to go to the secondary market. I see that seatwave.com is a subsidiary of Ticketmaster, is that my best bet?

"I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it's not about actually competing in a sport."

Some considerations: fandom, lets go shopping blog post, help center - "Sports Stack Exchange is for participants, hobbyists, and fans of all sports and forms of competitive physical activity."

  • 2
    -1, this would be better closed by a new reason "Shopping, buying or product recommendations are off-topic". – Fillet Dec 17 '15 at 10:22
  • This is a shopping question as worded. However, general questions along the lines of "How can I get tickets for an event while I'm in a foreign country" come up on Travel.SE. – Chenmunka Dec 17 '15 at 15:48
  • @Chenmunka Do you see a reason to implement that here? Moreover, would you suggest migrating such a question to Travel.SE if it comes up? – user527 Dec 17 '15 at 16:48
  • 2
    I don't have a convincing reason to implement it here. Also, I think a formal migration path would be overkill. If I saw such a question I'd be more inclined to suggest in a comment that the OP takes it to Travel than to flag for migration. – Chenmunka Dec 17 '15 at 18:27
  • @Chenmunka That's fair. Thanks. However, Philip makes a good point that cross-posting the same question is discouraged on SE. Perhaps deleting the question here, then taking it to Travel would be more appropriate. – user527 Dec 17 '15 at 18:42
  • Fandom is important in sports and is a vital part of our site. We allow fans based on our help center verbiage, and fans aren't "actually competing in a sport." The close reason Fillet provides is more applicable for this question. – user527 Dec 23 '15 at 13:36

In soccer, which player had the longest dribble then a miss goal?: In soccer, which player had the longest solo dribble, passed the keeper, then missed the goal?

"I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because requests for specific events are off-topic unless they are particularly notable."

Some considerations: The tag, this meta discussion about allowing sports trivia, this meta discussion about treating trivia questions consistently, How do we define "particularly notable"?, a reference to the close reason, other questions that asked for the longest occurrence of an event (which may be more scoped than this question in question): The longest super tie break?, The longest Olympic winning streak?, The longest Olympic winning streak for a nation.

  • 2
    I found this close reason unciteable and subjective. We allow trivia, we've had previous trivia questions in the same format...what was the difference in this one? I understand we had a discussion on sports statistics, but when it comes to raw trivia, we have determined it was on-topic, albeit with some trepidation. – user527 Dec 23 '15 at 13:29