Return to Answer

OK, even accepting that the actual process of migrating questions should be left to moderators, the current user-interface flow is suboptimal. So I suggest adding one more option to that dialog:

You could do this both for the flag-for-migration case and for the vote-to-close case. The technical effect would be the same in both cases: a moderator would have to migrate the question. But the user experience would be different:

• Selecting an option and entering text into a field feels like going forward, in contrast to the back or cancel-and-flag steps required otherwise.
• Going forward feels like one did the right thing, whereas having to go back feels like having made an error.
• This approach also reduces the number of clicks required to get this flagged properly.
• Having only to enter the name of the target site, instead of a full sentence, caters for lazybusy people.

Seeing as this question here currently has status-declined, you might want to also look at this more recent answer along the same lines, and if you voted here, vote for that, too.

OK, even accepting that the actual process of migrating questions should be left to moderators, the current user-interface flow is suboptimal. So I suggest adding one more option to that dialog:

You could do this both for the flag-for-migration case and for the vote-to-close case. The technical effect would be the same in both cases: a moderator would have to migrate the question. But the user experience would be different:

• Selecting an option and entering text into a field feels like going forward, in contrast to the back or cancel-and-flag steps required otherwise.
• Going forward feels like one did the right thing, whereas having to go back feels like having made an error.
• This approach also reduces the number of clicks required to get this flagged properly.
• Having only to enter the name of the target site, instead of a full sentence, caters for lazybusy people.

Seeing as this question here currently has status-declined, you might want to also look at this more recent answer along the same lines, and if you voted here, vote for that, too.

OK, even accepting that the actual process of migrating questions should be left to moderators, the current user-interface flow is suboptimal. So I suggest adding one more option to that dialog:

You could do this both for the flag-for-migration case and for the vote-to-close case. The technical effect would be the same in both cases: a moderator would have to migrate the question. But the user experience would be different:

• Selecting an option and entering text into a field feels like going forward, in contrast to the back or cancel-and-flag steps required otherwise.
• Going forward feels like one did the right thing, whereas having to go back feels like having made an error.
• This approach also reduces the number of clicks required to get this flagged properly.
• Having only to enter the name of the target site, instead of a full sentence, caters for lazybusy people.

Seeing as this question here currently has status-declined, you might want to also look at this more recent answer along the same lines, and if you voted here, vote for that, too.

OK, even accepting that the actual process of migrating questions should be left to moderators, the current user-interface flow is suboptimal. So I suggest adding one more option to that dialog:

You could do this both for the flag-for-migration case and for the vote-to-close case. The technical effect would be the same in both cases: a moderator would have to migrate the question. But the user experience would be different:

• Selecting an option and entering text into a field feels like going forward, in contrast to the back or cancel-and-flag steps required otherwise.
• Going forward feels like one did the right thing, whereas having to go back feels like having made an error.
• This approach also reduces the number of clicks required to get this flagged properly.
• Having only to enter the name of the target site, instead of a full sentence, caters for lazybusy people.

Seeing as this question here currently has status-declined, you might want to also look at this more recent answer along the same lines, and if you voted here, vote for that, too.

OK, even accepting that the actual process of migrating questions should be left to moderators, the current user-interface flow is suboptimal. So I suggest adding one more option to that dialog:
This question…

• is off topic
• belongs to foo
• belongs to bar
• should be migrated to _____ by a ♦ moderator

You could do this both for the flag-for-migration case and for the vote-to-close case. The technical effect would be the same in both cases: a moderator would have to migrate the question. But the user experience would be different:

• Selecting an option and entering text into a field feels like going forward, in contrast to the back or cancel-and-flag steps required otherwise.
• Going forward feels like one did the right thing, whereas having to go back feels like having made an error.
• This approach also reduces the number of clicks required to get this flagged properly.
• Having only to enter the name of the target site, instead of a full sentence, caters for lazybusy people.

Seeing as this question here currently has status-declined, should I file a new question to get some attention for this proposal?

OK, even accepting that the actual process of migrating questions should be left to moderators, the current user-interface flow is suboptimal. So I suggest adding one more option to that dialog:

You could do this both for the flag-for-migration case and for the vote-to-close case. The technical effect would be the same in both cases: a moderator would have to migrate the question. But the user experience would be different:

• Selecting an option and entering text into a field feels like going forward, in contrast to the back or cancel-and-flag steps required otherwise.
• Going forward feels like one did the right thing, whereas having to go back feels like having made an error.
• This approach also reduces the number of clicks required to get this flagged properly.
• Having only to enter the name of the target site, instead of a full sentence, caters for lazybusy people.

Seeing as this question here currently has status-declined, you might want to also look at this more recent answer along the same lines, and if you voted here, vote for that, too.