Timeline for Reviewing the site scope: balance between Fitness and Nutrition?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 1, 2011 at 19:53 | comment | added | Dave Liepmann | If I were to guess at other people's motivation in other circumstances, I would say that "nutrition qua nutrition" is different than "nutrition qua fitness". But I hear Shog9's point about "kicking users in the face", which is why I moved to immediately make the change and stop being in limbo. | |
| Sep 1, 2011 at 19:51 | comment | added | Dave Liepmann | I can speak to specific examples--for instance, the "green drink with celery" question at issue here I considered out of scope when I made my close vote because it had no reference to nutrition whatsoever. It was just "I don't like celery, what can I do instead?" which looks like a recipe Q to me. | |
| Sep 1, 2011 at 19:43 | comment | added | Grace Note StaffMod | @Dave If the plan was to remove it just from the title, not from the scope, then why was the site decorated with closures under the guise that nutrition's place in the scope is suspect? | |
| Sep 1, 2011 at 12:36 | comment | added | Dave Liepmann | Jeff, as I see it, all of the suggestions for removing "Nutrition" from the masthead keep nutrition in-scope. It's that having "nutrition" as part of the title repels athletes and attracts general-case "wellness" questions. It changes the meaning of Fitness to say "fitness and nutrition" instead of "fitness and exercise". I think that "Fitness" alone or "Fitness and Exercise" would preserve the nutrition questions that you (and I!) think are valuable, while making it more clear that our focus is not whether tomatoes are a fruit or a vegetable. What do you think? | |
| Sep 1, 2011 at 4:03 | history | answered | Jeff Atwood | CC BY-SA 3.0 |