What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 134 Stack Exchange communities.

Based on feedback from sites which have unsuitable questions handed to them from other sites (for example: Please stop using Programmers.SE as your toilet bowl):

Would it be possible to require that a migrated question be accepted by the destination site's moderators?

The question Adjust the system to slightly discourage migration over other close reasons suggests a penalty for incorrectly migrated questions, but as was stated in the answers, moderators of one site may not always be able to make a good decision regarding what is suitable on another site (which they may not be involved with).

This could also fulfill the feedback mechanism requested to help educate moderators who migrate an unsuitable question. If the migration is denied, it could contain comments from the destination site as to WHY the question should not be migrated.

EDITED: As I am not a moderator... I may have made the ultimate sin of suggesting more tasks be given to the moderators.

I would like to amend my request to ask that users with the ability to migrate a question be required to accept a question on the destination site. This would hopefully cause the process to be quicker, in addition to less burdensome.

share|improve this question
2  
Then, assuming moderators have no 24/7 schedule, the question should remain open until approved or rejected? Otherwise I'm afraid this will introduce duplicates by impatient authors, if only due to evil "belongs on" comments. (Note that it's not moderators who are voting to migrate; anyone with 3k rep can vote.) –  Arjan Dec 28 '10 at 16:15
1  
Perhaps it should have to be accepted in the same manner it is migrated. Accepted by a vote of 3k+ users? I'm not looking to burden moderators (I'm not one). –  RD1 Dec 28 '10 at 16:18
2  
I like the idea, but I'm not sure about an implementation. The "limbo period" as @Arjan mentioned, which could be lengthier on newer sites where there aren't enough users at the 3k or equivalent range. So this would require mod intervention, which could take more time. Though as a mod, I don't think I'd mind it. –  Rebecca Chernoff Dec 28 '10 at 16:43
    
@Rebecca: There is no migration path to sites on beta and sites with few 3k+ users are beta. IMO Limbo period should be "closed and waiting to migration". When target site approve the migration the question complete the process or when it were rejected, it change the status to just closed. It's just an idean. It could be improved. –  bigown Dec 28 '10 at 16:59
    
This has kinda been suggested before... I'm not totally against it, but feel strongly that users/mods on one site shouldn't be able to re-open an off-topic question on another. Consider also the likelihood that many users posting OT questions would just re-ask them (on one site or the other) if their question got stuck in "limbo". –  Shogging through the snow Dec 28 '10 at 17:07
    
@bigown, doesn't mean that the site has active 3k users that would be on top of completing migration paths. And mods can migrate anywhere. –  Rebecca Chernoff Dec 28 '10 at 17:14
1  
@Shog9 I think that first concern may be slightly alleviated by making it that the target site's vote/mod only affects the migration candidate's being mechanically re-posted on the target site and the consequent locking on the origin, but not the initial close status on the parent site. Not so much thought to the second concern, which I also share. –  Grace Note Dec 28 '10 at 17:23
    
@Shog9: Thanks for the link. You understood the process. One site doesn't interfere with the other. Today it happen. One site throw an unwanted question to another and nothing can be done against. Obviously the target site just could reject the question, never reopen it on source site. –  bigown Dec 28 '10 at 17:31
    
@Rebecca: I see. –  bigown Dec 28 '10 at 17:31
1  
@bigown: the "target" site can always close / delete questions, so they're not exactly powerless. Again, I'm not against a "reject migrate" idea that leaves the question able to be re-opened on the origin site, but if the question is just... bad... then there's no point in doing that either. Ultimately, the solution is to make it clear what sort of questions belong on each site and thereby avoid the whole mess. –  Shogging through the snow Dec 28 '10 at 17:37
    
@Shog9: I understood. The feature would be create a cleaner way to do the migration and provides an useful tool to handling unwanted questions. It's not a big change in the process. It would avoid to get the same question closed on multiple sites. –  bigown Dec 28 '10 at 18:45

1 Answer 1

Like @Rebecca I like the idea, but I can't see an implementation that would work without taking the question out of business for way too long. It will take a long time until there's as heavy moderator attendance on other sites as there is on SO.

Maybe make it a "double negative"? Meaning leaving the migration process as it is, but making it especially easy to bounce back migrated questions during the first six or twelve hours? Say, like, by requiring only two closevotes instead of five. Or a moderator decision, for that matter.

share|improve this answer
    
And after bouncing back, it should then probably be closed as off topic? (Closed on the first and third site, that is. No need for any trail on the second site I guess.) –  Arjan Dec 28 '10 at 17:03
    
@Arjan I think it would have to be impossible to migrate the question onto that site again (greyed out button), but I'd tend to leave it open and have it close-voted again manually. It will happen that even 3k+ users aren't aware of the perfect site for a question - think webapps.SE vs. Wordpress.SE vs. Stack Overflow –  Pëkka Dec 28 '10 at 17:06
    
@Arjan to illustrate my point : meta.stackexchange.com/questions/73382/… –  Pëkka Dec 28 '10 at 17:27
1  
This keeps things the same. –  bigown Dec 28 '10 at 17:37
    
@bigown not really - rejection would become more easy. Or is it that way already? –  Pëkka Dec 28 '10 at 17:38
    
What happens if you edit the post and rollback to a previous version before the migration occurred? Does it then reverse out the migration? –  Barry Dec 28 '10 at 18:23
    
@Barry No, no it doesn't. Nothing happens other than a rollback of content. Edit status is unrelated and independent of closing, locking, and migration (as well as merging and deletion, just to get those out of the way). –  Grace Note Dec 28 '10 at 18:30
    
@Grace - I thought that would be the case but had to check. –  Barry Dec 28 '10 at 18:36
    
@Pekka: It doesn't solve the real problem. The problem is to have multiple versions of a question over to SE sites. Ping-pong is not a solution. The problem currently is that the source site can impose the migration to target site. –  bigown Dec 28 '10 at 18:50
1  
@bigown I see what you mean, but I don't think it's that much of a problem, because every asker can impose a question upon any site already. But I can see the bigger issue. My main point is: It cannot be that a question floats in space un-answerable until the community acts on it. That is not going to work, and is against the character of SO. I don't know what the final solution to this is but it can't be that. –  Pëkka Dec 28 '10 at 23:00

You must log in to answer this question.

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