What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 130 Stack Exchange communities.

I love that posts closed as Off Topic and migrated to another site now say [migrated].

Can we do this for a [duplicate] as well? The distinction between a question closed as duplicate and one that is closed as not a real question, too localized, or otherwise "bad" is at least as big or maybe even bigger than those that are migrated.

Unless the original is also closed, then the duplicate is just as valid but already answered — and this would prevent users browsing the question lists from assuming anything else about the question (such as Weird, maybe X is off topic here?)

share|improve this question
5  
also, [merged] wouldn't hurt –  Tobias Kienzler May 17 '11 at 7:25
1  
How about making the title say [sic]? –  Andrew Grimm May 17 '11 at 7:39
1  
yes please do this pretty please –  Kip May 18 '11 at 19:54

3 Answers 3

up vote 38 down vote accepted

This is a thing that we do now:

enter image description here

share|improve this answer
3  
Go on, tell us how you do it. –  ChrisF Jan 22 '13 at 21:27
2  
@ChrisF I have no idea. Magic and some C#? –  Anna Lear Jan 22 '13 at 21:28
    
You can do better than that :) –  ChrisF Jan 22 '13 at 21:29
    
Magic, C# and SQL I bet –  Ben Brocka Jan 22 '13 at 21:30
6  
@BenBrocka SQL is magic. –  Anna Lear Jan 22 '13 at 21:30
3  
My little Database SQL is Magic –  Ben Brocka Jan 22 '13 at 21:32
7  
The query is already being done to determine what something was closed as, so the result is memoized and reused for the title suffix. MEMOIZATION, F*&$ YEAH! –  Jarrod Dixon Jan 22 '13 at 21:33
4  
Also, brace yourselves for more changes around duplicates. –  Jarrod Dixon Jan 22 '13 at 21:34
2  
And if some database changes were involved, then maybe adding a search option duplicate:yes is doable too? (Next to the existing closed: and migrated. I have no idea if that is useful though...) –  Arjan Jan 22 '13 at 21:34
    
Shouldn't it say "duplicated" with a "d" to match "closed" and "migrated"? –  animuson Jan 22 '13 at 21:35
7  
@animuson No: the closed question is the duplicate, it's the other question that's duplicated. –  Gilles Jan 22 '13 at 21:37
2  
@JarrodDixon Like this? –  NullUserException อ_อ Jan 22 '13 at 21:40
2  
This is great, because it's more conciliatory than "closed", but has the same effect. –  AndrewC Jan 22 '13 at 21:41
2  
@Arjan a search operator isn't in the plans, yet, but it might be. One would have to plead with Nick Craver to add it to the elastic search models :) –  Jarrod Dixon Jan 22 '13 at 21:43

If the only problem is extra DB lookups, how about literally modifying question title to add "[duplicate]" string instead? There's hardly any chance they'll be reopened back and need any editing, so this won't get in anyone's way. Yes, "[duplicate] [closed]" looks heavier, but I'd be willing to look over it to see duplicates at a glance. Or it can even be cut down with site JS or userscript.

And even in a miniscule amount of cases when such a question is somehow reopened it is still small feat to remove it manually or system can even clean-up this automatically too.

share|improve this answer
    
The code still needs to make an extra query, to know the closing reason. The migration date is saved in the "Posts" table, but the closing reason (e.g. off-topic, not constructive, not a real question) is saved in a different table. –  kiamlaluno Sep 25 '12 at 12:26
1  
@kiamlaluno, it seems you didn't understood: on closing, "title" column should be modified by appending literal " [duplicate]" suffix to it. Displaying title with those words in it, naturally, doesn't require any more lookups that any other title. –  Oleg V. Volkov Sep 25 '12 at 12:45
    
That's a non-robust and non-semantic approach that would not pass code review in my team. –  Lightness Races in Orbit Jan 24 '13 at 7:00

No -- not without incurring one SQL query per every displayed element on the page.

[migrated] was possible because we store a MigrationDate on the posts table. There is only CloseDate; to get the reason for the close we would have to dig into the post history table which is massive.

I don't feel this feature is so important it is worth that amount of performance and engineering work at this time.

share|improve this answer
4  
That's very reasonable. We need more performance. But would it be reasonable to include close reasons in the Posts table or is that change too costly to do right now? –  Jeff Mercado May 26 '11 at 23:12
22  
I get that it's expensive. But when you look at a lower-volume site with a lot of closing (eg programmers.se) the [closed] markers are telling what's welcome here and what's not. When things are closed as dupes they look unwelcome, which they're not. I think the "first impression" is better when dupes are marked as such. –  Kate Gregory Jul 14 '11 at 14:53
1  
While the "programmer time" argument might be valid (although I'd personally consider it worth it, and would volunteer to help if I could), the performance impact could be easily eliminated, at the cost of a small amount of database denormalization, by adding a CloseReasonId column to the posts table. It could even be populated gradually by a background job. –  Ilmari Karonen Mar 13 '12 at 18:28
    
Ps. In hindsight, it would probably have been better to use a CloseHistoryId column, pointing to the appropriate row in the PostHistory table, instead of CloseDate. That would've required an extra (left) join to get the closing date, but would've made all the other information in the history row just as easily accessible. I suppose it still wouldn't be too late to switch... –  Ilmari Karonen Mar 13 '12 at 18:33
3  
How easy would it be to check the post body to see if it starts with "Possible Duplicate"? –  ChrisF May 5 '12 at 12:24

You must log in to answer this question.

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