-3

The proposal in question is the "Performance riding". It was closed as a duplicate of the "Motorcycles" proposal. I was already following the "Motorcycles" forum, but proposed the "Performance riding" forum as there are already hundreds of broad scope motorcycle forums on the web where people discuss what bikes they like and what WSBK / MotoGP rider is their favorite. I've found no forums which work as a good knowledge base for improving riding, be it track riding or on the streets. Hence the proposal with the title "Performance riding", which name was deliberately chosen to indicate that this forum would only be for discussing riding techniques and tune-ups.

I think there's a need for the "Performance riding" forum. How do I go about getting it reopened?

2

See the very closely related question What does it take to spin off a subtopic site?

Stack Exchange sites have a far broader scope than forums. It's normal that one Stack Exchange site would correspond to hundreds of forums.

A forum only for discussing riding techniques and tune-ups sounds extremely specialized. Consider that you must start a site with 200 interested users, and the numbers are quickly expected to run into the thousands and keep growing once the site is live. The right size for a Stack Exchange site might be somewhere around the size of a university department.

In order to show that a performance riding site is viable, the first thing you need to do is demonstrate that it cannot function as a part of a general site about motorcycles. So first give the Motorcycles proposal a try. If the site goes live and it turns out that performance riding is too different from other motorcycles-related concerns to function on the same site, then would be the right time to propose a performance riding site.

  • I have read that question, and a quote from it says very well how I feel about starting off with the "Motorcycles" site: "As it turns out, there's also a very real human element of forming communities that has to consider if a group would even recognize a broad subject as a place they would be interested in. (...) Modeling all of our sites to be as big and inclusive as Stack Overflow was a nice sentiment — but carving out an overly-broad swathe in the name of "a larger community" isn't going to be of much use if the target audience overlooks the site looking for more-focused interests." – K0ICHI Nov 7 '13 at 3:21
  • It would be a lot harder to attract the people I want to participate, in another broad site like "Motorcycles", and sort of: "And maybe we can spin off to the site we want later?" On the other hand, I don't see the problem with letting both proposals live side by side. If it turns out that the "Performance riding" proposal couldn't get enough followers, it could then be merged with the "Motorcycles" site later. – K0ICHI Nov 7 '13 at 3:26
  • I also don't consider it an extremely specialized subject. There are thousands of racers, track riders and active street riders around the world whose main interest in motorcycles is precisely these subjects. And as I touched on earlier: They don't really have anywhere else to go at the moment, so they might flock to this new site! – K0ICHI Nov 7 '13 at 3:27
  • @K0ICHI Only thousands? This is an extremeley specialized subject compared with the typical number of participants in a Stack Exchange site. – Gilles Nov 7 '13 at 7:45
  • Maybe you think so, but I would LOVE to have a site with thousands of participants! But anyway, I'm about to just give up on the whole Stack Exchange thing. I seem to be getting no where with my objections. Seems rather pointless to be closing a proposal in it's infancy like it was. So the other option will be to create a forum the old fashioned way. A pity really, because I really think the whole point system, badges and all is a GREAT idea. – K0ICHI Nov 7 '13 at 13:29

You must log in to answer this question.

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