Timeline for Reset votes on migrated questions
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
36 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 27, 2016 at 20:21 | comment | added | WorseDoughnut | Definitely will, thanks. | |
| Apr 27, 2016 at 20:17 | comment | added | Shog9 | Not stressful, just tired of talking about this after so many years, @Worse. If you're interested in more details, see: blog.stackoverflow.com/2012/03/… | |
| Apr 27, 2016 at 19:58 | comment | added | WorseDoughnut | @Shog9 Ah, so users were requesting / moderators were approving migrations for older questions to newer, more relevant sites that didn't exist at the time? I definitely understand the concern; not only having those questions moved without the authors consent / input, but also stripping it of all it's upvotes in the process is definitely unfair. Although, I'd say these days both that example and the OP of this request's examples are definitely edge-cases, so yeah it's pretty much a non-issue I'd imagine. Thank you for the clarification, and sorry for any undue stress i might have sent your way. | |
| Apr 27, 2016 at 19:44 | comment | added | Shog9 | Ok. So, 3+ years ago when I last considered this proposal, most of the cases where it arose involved folks on new sites trying to grab old, popular questions from existing sites @WorseDoughnut. This wasn't always done with the authors' acquiescence and worse yet wasn't always limited to questions that were actually off-topic - so there was an increasing number of authors getting irritated that their work was being dragged around the network on a whim. This request therefore amounted to an effort to rub salt in an already-open wound. | |
| Apr 27, 2016 at 19:28 | comment | added | WorseDoughnut | @Shog9 Not at all. Like I said, I'm just trying to understand your side of this discussion better. | |
| Apr 27, 2016 at 19:24 | comment | added | Shog9 | Got a recent example of this, @Worse? | |
| Apr 27, 2016 at 18:52 | comment | added | WorseDoughnut | @sho9 I'm sorry if my comment somehow came across as offensive to you, I'm just trying to understand your POV. Where are you getting "we want your work, but we want it to rate badly" from? The issue is about answers from users on the original off-topic site, which are upvoted because the off-topic site's users don't know any better. | |
| Apr 27, 2016 at 18:45 | comment | added | Shog9 | And I can't wrap my head around folks who want to migrate questions and answers they don't like, @WorseDoughnut. If your attitude is, "we want your work, but we want it to rate badly" then... How 'bout you try proposing that to the authors you're about to yank the rug out from under instead of bothering me about it? | |
| Apr 27, 2016 at 14:34 | comment | added | WorseDoughnut | "[...]is a side-effect of the underlying issue, which is that the post itself may not be acceptable; [...] If the posts aren't appropriate, don't move them - that's the simplest possible solution to the underlying problem here." @Shog9 But what about when the post should be migrated, but the users on the original site have already upvoted the question or it's not-as-correct-as-the-real-answer answers? This issue is most certainly NOT solved by the "just don't migrate it" handwave dismissal. I'm sorry, I just can't wrap my head around your rationale on my own. | |
| Dec 19, 2015 at 17:54 | comment | added | ivan_pozdeev | Discussing the reasons for rampant migration abuse (which I see as a far cry from simple "disrespect") is also off-topic here. | |
| Dec 19, 2015 at 17:24 | comment | added | ivan_pozdeev | @Shog9 Discussing the "respect" thing - or, rather, how different people see it applied to the migration thingy - is off-topic here (I will promptly feel a banhammer on my head if I have the insolence). I can only say I didn't buy that in your blog post - but couldn't point this out because you closed the comments. | |
| Dec 19, 2015 at 17:12 | comment | added | ivan_pozdeev | In the light of this, my earlier guess about the real rationale - that the underlying mechanism is currently too flawed to empower it even more - appears to be correct after all. | |
| Dec 19, 2015 at 16:04 | comment | added | Shog9 | Don't be crude, @ivan. Again, I've been listening to folks like you crying for a technical solution to this for years, then whining when it doesn't do what you want because what you refuse to do is treat your fellow authors with the same respect you wish for yourself. So, fine: there is only one technical solution that can help. Is that throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Only if there's still a baby; the longer this goes on, the fewer people seem to care about actually helping folks find a place where they can get an answer and the more fixated we get with papershuffling. | |
| Dec 19, 2015 at 16:01 | comment | added | ivan_pozdeev | (YES! YES! I was betting if you would ultimately say this!) It will - as in cutting the head off to cure a headache (and yes, another "final solution", too) - and, most probably, just as effective. | |
| Dec 19, 2015 at 14:15 | comment | added | Shog9 | The final solution here will be to completely remove the concept of migration from the system, @ivan. | |
| Dec 19, 2015 at 13:14 | comment | added | ivan_pozdeev | If that is correct (if not, ignore or delete this comment), then 1)the comments show this approximation has proven to be too crude (but discussing alternatives is off-topic in this Q&A); 2)the current suggestion essentially partially automates the task of cleaning up the irrelevant stuff, thus raising the plank for acceptable initial amount of it - at the cost or risking wiping some useful stuff as well. | |
| Dec 19, 2015 at 13:12 | comment | added | ivan_pozdeev | So, just as I thought. The parameter governing the migration eligibility is not the age, it's rather the ratio "question value by the troublesomeness of the irrelevant stuff in it" (in which, "troublesomeness" can be approximated to "amount" (except the bounties which are much more troublesome), and - since almost all the "worthy" questions are presumed to have roughly the same value (exceptions are very rare) - the ratio is virtually equivalent to just "amount of irrelevant stuff"). The current criteria - the age - was probably taken as a crude first approximation (linear dependency) of that. | |
| Dec 19, 2015 at 2:51 | comment | added | Shog9 | Right. If that particular tree is worth enough to you to make dealing with the contamination preferable to just finding a different question, so be it @ivan. There are trees that are essentially uncontaminated; bring those inside whenever you wish. There are trees that are fine where they are, a useful habitat as it were, but would be a lot of work to bring inside; leave those where they sit. | |
| Dec 19, 2015 at 2:23 | comment | added | ivan_pozdeev | But that'll force me to go to the trouble of procuring/growing another one of at least the same value while I already have one such right here (that's the whole idea behind the migration feature). So, the matter ultimately boiled down to: "the net value (of the question + existing answers) vs contamination by irrelevant stuff - the amount of trouble to remove it and willingness to do so or tolerate the garbage" (the last one I presume to be low as it's against the network's principles). Did I get this right? | |
| Dec 19, 2015 at 1:19 | comment | added | Shog9 | There's no shortage of trees, @ivan. | |
| Dec 19, 2015 at 1:17 | comment | added | ivan_pozdeev | @Shog9 using your analogy - you can wipe the tree clean of markings, and having a somewhat dirty one is still better than not having one at all (...or is it? Eureka! Looks like we've got to the core issue finally!) | |
| Dec 19, 2015 at 0:13 | comment | added | Shog9 | The problem with this suggestion, @ivan, is that the problem which this suggestion was proposed to solve is not actually solved by it. The primary complaint here - that the voting of folks in one community might not be acceptable to those in another - is a side-effect of the underlying issue, which is that the post itself may not be acceptable; resetting the voting doesn't change that, it just papers over one particular side-effect. If the posts aren't appropriate, don't move them - that's the simplest possible solution to the underlying problem here. | |
| Dec 18, 2015 at 23:44 | comment | added | ivan_pozdeev | Okay, so the real rationale is: "the folks have proved to be too incompetent in migration per se to trust them with such a powerful mechanism." So, there's nothing wrong (at least, nothing fundamentally wrong) with this particular suggestion, the problem is rather in the abuse of the more general mechanism it's supposed to enhance. Correct? | |
| Dec 18, 2015 at 23:33 | comment | added | Shog9 | Neither, @Ivan. I watched folks argue about this for years, and realized that as the outcry grew worse with it came an increase in the number of questions that didn't actually need to be migrated at all, folks shuffling others' posts around as busywork with no value to either site and nothing but frustration for the authors who'd contributed to them. And the solution is supposed to be to pile yet more burden on those authors? Naw; if you can't handle the Q&A, don't migrate it. See also: blog.stackoverflow.com/2012/03/… | |
| Dec 18, 2015 at 23:29 | comment | added | ivan_pozdeev | From your message, the real rationale appears to be: "reversing a potentially vast amount of events is too radical for my liking" rather than the stated "no way to do this". Another interpretation I see is: "I'm against erasing/rewriting history in any form and shape". Which one is it? | |
| Dec 18, 2015 at 23:06 | comment | added | ivan_pozdeev | Lie about what? (also see an edit just before you posted) | |
| Dec 18, 2015 at 23:05 | comment | added | Shog9 | Oh, sure, we could just lie about it... | |
| Dec 18, 2015 at 22:59 | comment | added | ivan_pozdeev | "there's no way to implement a time-machine for migration that'll turn back the clock to when the question was originally posted" - but there is! Resetting everything is just that (remember, "time" here is but a series of records in DB). Even bounties are worthy of being retracted (but not refunded) because it's the participants' fault to try to take advantage of the system and get an answer/reward for an off-topic question. Answers themselves shall not disappear (to avoid scrapping potentially useful ones) since the target community can deal with them just fine with votes and/or VLQ. | |
| Aug 27, 2015 at 5:59 | comment | added | Shog9 | The solution to that particular problem is deletion, @Catija. Also, educate the folks on SFF not to migrate crap. | |
| Aug 27, 2015 at 5:50 | comment | added | Catija | Is there any chance of reconsidering this? We get the occasional ID questions shunted to M&TV from Sci-Fi and they're much more accepting of ID questions that we are... so they usually end up on M&TV with several upvotes and nearly always get closed on our site for not having enough detail to be a good question. EG: This quesiton came to us with two upvotes despite being pretty crummy a question. | |
| Apr 24, 2014 at 13:39 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| Jan 16, 2014 at 19:53 | comment | added | gnat | the road to golden badge in status-declined tag gotta be tough | |
| Oct 19, 2012 at 9:39 | comment | added | Caleb | The problem isn't always answers, it is often questions with NO answers at all. What I'm most frustrated with is also not the old questions (which have their own problems) but specifically with very new questions (minutes even). In my answer above I also suggest that a vote reset mechanism would incentivise high rep users to push for early migration when they spot off topic questions. Right now this often doesn't happen and questions quickly collect answers rather than quickly collecting VTC's like they should. | |
| Oct 18, 2012 at 22:15 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | “An answer that's had time to collect a lot of up-votes” Sometimes the time is measured in minutes. In my experience with subpar migrations as judged from the receiving side, the age of the question has never been an issue. Old questions that had gone largely unnoticed were fine. Popular questions that quickly accrued high-scoring answers due to uninformed posters on the source site were the problem, whether they were an hour or a year old. | |
| Oct 18, 2012 at 21:54 | history | answered | Shog9 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |