Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 157 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

Is it possible to add a tool that shows mods all posts on the network that have at least one vote to migrate to their site? For example, a page SO moderators can see that shows all posts on the network where at least one person has cast a "belongs on Stack Overflow" vote. In this mockup, there are two posts waiting to migrate to UL; the first has 3 "belongs on Unix and Linux" votes and a 4th in some other category, while the second has only one migration vote and two others in some other category:

Mockup of the interface

This sounds similiar to Can there be a feature for moderators to "reject" a question migration? and Require migrated questions to be accepted by the destination site's moderators, but flips the responsibility around -- mods can preemptively reject a migration before it happens, versus needing to manually approve every migration (which forces posts to stay in limbo until a mod has reviewed them). This behavior already happens manually; mods spot a post on SO that has migration votes when it doesn't actually belong on their site, so they find an SO mod to close the post before it gets enough votes. It seems like they should be able to handle it on their own -- when the post gets 5 votes it just closes as "off-topic" instead of migrating. If the post gets enough migration votes and a target site mod hasn't said anything, it migrates normally as it always has

In the mockup I also added an "approve" button. The intent was to let mods say "we'll take it now, there's no need to keep voting", but that basically lets mods steal a post from another site as long as it has 1 vote, so that might not be a good idea. The two features are independent though; "reject" can exist without "approve" (and actually, just a list with no buttons at all would still be better than nothing)

share|improve this question
That information should be visible at least to 10k users on the target site, if not to 3k (closers). – Gilles Jun 10 '11 at 0:29
@Gilles I can definitely see the info showing up in 10k tools; the buttons would add a whole voting dimension that probably makes this way too complicated – Michael Mrozek Jun 10 '11 at 0:32
Related, when the migration has gone through already: Please show all migrated posts in /review – Gilles Jun 10 '11 at 0:33
Initially the list might be all we need. This means it wouldn't be reliant on us "happening along" posts on the source site. It would also allow us better figures for how serious the problem is. – ChrisF Jun 10 '11 at 8:11
I'm a bit iffy about this if only because it only really affects the paths where you can explicitly vote to migrate. It doesn't affect the wide expanse of flag suggestions or comments that show up when someone suggests a site that isn't on the migration paths. – Grace Note Jun 10 '11 at 12:09
@Grace I think that's okay. A flag for a migration along a "private" path results in a moderator migrating the question (or not), and we can usually resolve incorrect migrations easily with the moderator involved. Being able to stop a community-initiated migration without doing the "any mods from X here?" dance in chat would still be helpful. – Adam Jun 11 '11 at 2:21
What happens on a high-traffic site migrating to a low-traffic site? The question can get sufficient votes to move before a mod on the receiving site can say yes/no? This is better than a purely automated move by people who might not understand the receiving community, but not as good as a limbo (IMO). – Thomas Owens Jun 23 '11 at 20:20
@Thomas I'm not a fan of forcing mods to approve, this just lets them reject before the vote has finished. If it gets enough votes it migrates, and if they didn't want it they'll have to deal with it like they currently do now – Michael Mrozek Jun 23 '11 at 20:47
+1. This would also allow the receiving site users to find posts in need of migrating and helping voting for it, if necessary. – PaĆ­lo Ebermann Jun 26 '11 at 2:10
+1 This feature could have avoided some misunderstandings here. – kasperd Apr 24 at 11:57
@GraceNote Anything relying on using free form comments to suggest migrations to sites not on the default paths, would not be useful for any sort of automation. The only options would be to either live with those limitations, or add a possibility for users to manually choose a target site among all existing sites. – kasperd Apr 24 at 12:04

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .