Timeline for Regarding the high number of rejected migrations from Stack Overflow to Server Fault
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 18, 2012 at 19:17 | comment | added | Rachel | @YannisRizos Ahhh I forgot you have to vote to close as off-topic before you can vote to migrate :) Still shouldn't matter though. If users hadn't selected another SE site, the question would be closed and no new answers accepted anyways. If the question is on-topic, then users shouldn't be closing it in the first place. | |
| Oct 18, 2012 at 19:06 | comment | added | yannis | @Rachel Voting to migrate is a two step process: 1) Vote to close as off topic, 2) Select an alternative site. The fact that there might be a good alternative site doesn't mean the question should generate answers on the site it was originally asked on, this isn't Yahoo! Answers. If five people vote to migrate, they've also voted the question as off topic for their site and it should be closed. | |
| Oct 18, 2012 at 19:01 | comment | added | Rachel | @YannisRizos I have no idea what you're trying to say here :) Users vote to migrate. Question shows up in target site's migration queue. Users from target site review question, approve it, and it gets moved to their site. During this time, the question still exists on source site, and nothing changes on the question except possibly display something to signify it is pending migration to a new site. If it gets a good answer, so be it. The question can still be migrated if users think it's a good reference question for their site, or can stay on target site and get closed as off-topic. | |
| Oct 18, 2012 at 18:54 | comment | added | yannis |
@Rachel Who knows, the OP might even get an answer while they're waiting And we don't want that. We close questions that have little chance (if any) at getting expert answers at the site, if the question is answerable and fits the scope and expertise of the site, why migrate it at all?
|
|
| Oct 18, 2012 at 18:52 | comment | added | Rachel |
@YannisRizos Who said anything about closure?? Just leave it alone, or perhaps tack a [Pending Migration] status to it. Who knows, the OP might even get an answer while they're waiting
|
|
| Oct 18, 2012 at 18:41 | comment | added | yannis | @Rachel Hm? I don't think closing a question and telling the asker to wait for a few hours until we find a better home for it is such a good idea... Think about it in terms of closure (in general): Hey, I closed this because it's a duplicate, give me a couple of hours to find the actual duplicate. | |
| Oct 18, 2012 at 18:39 | comment | added | Rachel | @YannisRizos So leave them on the site they originated at until they get approved by the site they're moving too. They're already on that site in the first place, so no harm will come of them sticking around for a few extra hours or days until they get approved :) | |
| Oct 18, 2012 at 18:37 | comment | added | yannis | The main counter argument to your proposal is that it hurts good migrations by placing them in limbo... Good migrations should happen instantly, there's no reason at all to have the asker wait (even more) while a committee is examining his/her question. | |
| Oct 18, 2012 at 18:35 | comment | added | yannis | ...and: Create an Accept Migration voting mechanism for migrated questions | |
| Oct 18, 2012 at 18:35 | comment | added | ale | It's been mentioned a bunch of different times, especially when these Migration tempest-in-a-teapot questions come up. Mostly they're buried in comments or answers. Here's what I found that seem to address the issue directly: Show mods all network posts with pending migration votes to their site Require migrated questions to be accepted by the destination site's moderators Add review queue for recent migrations | |
| Oct 18, 2012 at 18:23 | comment | added | Rachel | @AlEverett Do you have a link to the meta question, or know why it was denied? It seems like a good idea too me.... can't think of why it would have been denied, particularly with the new review system in place. | |
| Oct 18, 2012 at 17:12 | comment | added | ale | Unfortunately, this has been suggested--and rejected--in the past. | |
| Oct 18, 2012 at 16:25 | comment | added | Rachel | @PopularDemand That's easy, don't incentive the migration queue and the only people who will bother checking it out and reviewing things are the ones that actually care about the content and moving good questions to their site :) | |
| Oct 18, 2012 at 16:22 | comment | added | Pops | Clever, but I think that before we implement this, we'd have to wait until we solve the "many reviewers are really, really bad at their jobs" problem that's being discussed extensively elsewhere on Meta lately. | |
| Oct 18, 2012 at 16:13 | comment | added | MDMarra | +1 I 100% back this idea. | |
| Oct 18, 2012 at 16:12 | history | answered | Rachel | CC BY-SA 3.0 |