One of the questions I posted up awhile back was "Is the endurance running hypothesis of human evolution credible?"1 (10k users or moderators only) which to me seems like it should have been a simple and straightforward question to address. Namely, is the theory considered creditable by scientists that actually study the field since it is unlikely to be answerable any time soon and was presented in the book as a developing area of research.
Given the amount of feedback of the question either being "bad" or perhaps more realistically, no a good fit for this site, perhaps we need to determine if such questions have a place here or not and amend the FAQ accordingly.
It strikes me that from a skeptical point of view, asking if a question that is outside your field of expertise is credible is good practice. Also, it is generally fairly easy for us to determine if something not creditable so we should capable for arriving at a way of handling these type of questions.
- The question is not so much important as the process behind the revisions. There was a lot of back and forth out of which arose this meta-question.