7

We are still in beta, still not growing at an amazing rate, and while we have a core of good questions/answers, it is always good to challenge one's views. So, what are we doing right? What are we doing wrong and how can we improve that?

This is how In envisage this working:

  • People post answers!
  • One and only one point per answer. This is so we can up/down vote a particular point.
  • As usual, Be Nice applies to meta as well as the main site.
  • Upvote or downvote based on your agreement. Let;s not have long comment threads - if you disagree with an answer, post your own answer.

The goal of this question is to find out how to make this site better.

Clearly this was inspired by the RPG meta question…

| |
4

Many arts are represented.

This is a good thing.

We are a diverse and open community, and the number of arts tags is varied. There is a good sampling of different styles with each art and so far the shark vs gorilla has been kept to a negligible amount.

| |
  • 1
    I started writing up an answer that I realized basically replicated this one. We tend to have a pretty good balance between MMA and Traditional styles. People don't get shouted down that "knifehand blocks are Bullshido". There's a recognition that some people don't do martial arts to fight, or might just do it as a fun hobby. Even when people feel that something is mythical (ninja techniques, chi, reliable knockout punches), they're generally pretty civil about pointing that out and generally try to invoke reputable sources instead of just saying "You're wrong and you should feel bad." – Macaco Branco May 8 '17 at 14:52
4

There are few questions

For a question and answer StackExchange site, this is obviously a problem. For the past few years we have averaged somewhere around one question per day.

| |
  • 2
    I agree that this is an issue, and one of the reasons we stay in Beta. Although, honestly, it could be that it's just that slow of a topic. – Macaco Branco Jun 16 '17 at 15:32
3

Many answers are still based on anecdotal evidence or in a narrative mode

This is bad.

A StackExchange should always aim for "objectiveness", i.e. at least based on some kind of public, accessible source. This also is a hint towards the possibility that questions that are formulated so that they encourage opnionated answers. Although this improved (mainly because of the interference and comments of @Sardathrion), it is still a problem.

I know it from Philosophy.SE, where it even more is kind of a problem of the subject itself. Still, this should not serve as an excuse. I pledge guilty myself, especially regarding questions on teaching. This is because I do not have access to the literature and/or the time to lurk through it and learn to evaluate the quality etc.

| |
  • MA are a highly subjective issue though... almost everyone has different reasons to do it (except maybe for the highly competetitive ones where the actual competition makes up a high percentage of the time). So, is this really a bad thing? – AnoE Jul 28 '17 at 8:06
  • @AnoE The problem being is that this isn't some random MA board, but before anything else is part of the StackExchange network. This tightens the range of suitable content significantly. As written, I know that this may cross with the needs of users and topic to some extent, but objectivity and references are still primary criteria determined by the very concept of the site. – Philip Klöcking Jul 28 '17 at 14:48
  • I see what you mean. You intend the MA.SE more as something that answers factual questions. No objection there. Still, this may or may not be a problem with the answers, but with the questions. I think there are many possible questions about MA which fundamentally have no objective answer, but only subjective ones. I am not trying to bash your answer here, only trying to expand a bit on it. For example, if I had posted your answer, I w.h. titled it "Many questions strongly invite anecdotal evidence etc.". Aside from that, good for calling out @Sardathrion, he does indeed do good. – AnoE Jul 28 '17 at 15:09
3

Questions tend to fall either in very beginner level questions or deep specific questions.

I don't know if this is good, bad, or neutral. It seems like half of the questions tend to be things that people with very little experience and maybe not a good understanding of how to frame the situation ask, and the other half tend to be very specific that require someone pretty familiar with a specific art or situation. (Wild guess: the middle level questions either can be answered only with training, or, at that point, you have access to resources to find the answer rather than turning to strangers on the internet... and only specific, maybe obscure questions still require to going to a site like Stack Exchange).

The beginner type questions get a lot of answers because mostly it is about either demolishing myths or pointing out basic concepts and resources to learn more. The deep questions maybe get 1 or 2 answers, as not enough people are familiar enough to give a good response.

It's worth keeping this in mind for whatever ways people look to improve the site.

| |
  • I think this is a good thing. Being a beginner myself, looking at the future in martial arts, I can see myself asking questions in the coming years that will spur activity content for the site. – Louis Aug 22 '18 at 13:36
1

Medical questions are now closed.

This is a good thing.

Why would you ask strangers with no medical knowledge whatsoever about your medical problems? It is dangerous and unethical to delay anyone seeking proper medical care.

Now we do not allow those questions.

| |
1

Female martial artists are under represented here.

This is bad.

Out of the top users, only one is clearly identifiable as female. Is it because of a perceived macho culture or just because there are not many female martial artists on the Internet? What can be done to improve this is another question.

| |
  • 5
    I disagree that they are under represented, we have no way of proving this either way and users should not ever have to identify their gender unless they choose to. If you could identify a policy or site culture that was detrimental to female participation then that would be a totally valid point. We should aim to attract all martial artists all the time, we should not attempt to identify sub groups based on partial information and then try to fix the perceived problem - that doesn't add value at all. – slugster♦ May 4 '17 at 18:20
  • 1
    @slugster You make a compelling argument. – Sardathrion - against SE abuse May 4 '17 at 20:53
  • 2
    Honestly, the one time I remember it coming up (probably not the only one) was the one female who made several posts that indicated that she was practicing multiple forms of martial arts and being brutalized in all of them. I think we gave her good advice, although she never came back. – Macaco Branco May 8 '17 at 18:29
1

The site does a good job of handling "What's this technique" questions

I suspect this could be a controversial one for the same reason that "Story Identification" questions often are, that it's so subjective and so difficult to get people to provide sufficient detail (I can look to my own question for pitfalls thereof), but in my experience, it's not uncommon for someone to see a movement in a movie, or at a competition, and get curious as to why that person did it. I've seen several such questions here and the answers tend to not only identify the technique and which style it's from, but also a bit about where you might use it most effectively.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .