Timeline for What privilege should 30k users get?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 6, 2023 at 23:35 | comment | added | Joooeey | I like this proposal if one caveat is added: A 30k user can suggest to migrate a Q&A from any other site. The author is notified and only if the author agrees, the Q&A is migrated. | |
| Jun 17, 2021 at 19:11 | history | edited | bad_coder | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added SSL.
|
| Jun 3, 2020 at 13:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| May 23, 2017 at 12:36 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Apr 9, 2015 at 22:19 | comment | added | cpast | Maybe add migration targets to sites you have >30k on, which (when picked) let other closevoters vote to migrate there? You couldn't cast your own closevote unless you already had 3k on the source site; if you don't, it'd flag. | |
| S Apr 6, 2015 at 1:08 | history | suggested | xkcdBot | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Move the disclaimer to the end; focus on the suggestion.
|
| Apr 6, 2015 at 1:04 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Apr 6, 2015 at 1:08 | |||||
| Apr 5, 2015 at 16:51 | comment | added | nhgrif | Seems to me like before you get any sort of expedited migration power, you should have a large amount of rep on BOTH sites. A question shouldn't be migrated away unless it is off-topic on the original site. A question shouldn't be migrated to unless it is on-topic on the target site. And a question shouldn't be migrated at all unless it's actually a good question. Users with 200 rep on Site A and 30k rep on Site B wouldn't be a good judge of what should be migrated to or from Site A. You need to be familiar with both sites! | |
| Apr 5, 2015 at 5:17 | comment | added | Werner | @MonicaCellio: This is a good suggestion. I'll incorporate some of the said comments (others included) to refine my proposal. | |
| Apr 5, 2015 at 4:07 | comment | added | Monica Cellio | Being an expert in a prospective migration target doesn't make you an expert in the other site. I'm very uncomfortable with sites being able to poach questions from other sites. Maybe you should only be able to do this for questions closed (not on hold, but closed) as off-topic on the other site -- in other words, you can't poach questions that are ok there (or are new enough that they might be being fixed), but if another site has said "no", that'd be different. | |
| Apr 4, 2015 at 15:06 | comment | added | Christian Rau | There's nothing wrong in enlightening a new user about other sites where he can post his questions. But a high-rep user from that other site just voting to move things over to the site he thinks it belongs is an entirely different thing. @psubsee2003 Ardesses the exact problem here. At least there should be loads of additional restrictions to such an ability, probably up to so much that you can just leave it to a mdoerator once it's closed anyway. | |
| Apr 4, 2015 at 14:09 | comment | added | psubsee2003 | @Werner and ultimately topic "turfing" isn't limited to beta sites. What's to stop a 30K user from running through a site and moving everything related to their preferred site. This needs a lot more restrictions. (1) More than just a minimum rep on the current site (maybe 10K on site 1, 30K on site 2 . (2) Only migrate when there are no upvoted answers and the questions is a week old (or more). | |
| Apr 4, 2015 at 14:04 | comment | added | psubsee2003 | @Werner you didn't mention graduated sites in your suggestion, hence my comment. But I still don't agree on overriding the wishes of the original poster when the topic is on-topic in both locations. When there could be a better site, you should suggest it via comment, not just arbitrarily decide to move it for them because you think it would be better, | |
| Apr 4, 2015 at 13:53 | comment | added | Werner | @psubsee2003: The migration suggestions I've made have been between two graduated sites and mostly for users who don't know about the target site. And saying "The user chose [to] post the question on [some] site" doesn't mean they know what they're doing. While you may have been around a while, some posters are desperate, and things end up in the Stack Overflow post-mill. Specifically, (La)TeX-related questions not only is a better fit on TeX - LaTeX, more comprehensive and often superior answers are given on that site than on Stack Overflow. | |
| Apr 4, 2015 at 8:32 | comment | added | psubsee2003 | I participated in a private beta that had some overlap with a graduated site. So when anyone posted a question that fit the scope of the graduated site, a very senior member of that graduated site went and posted comments that say "This belongs on X.SE". We don't want that at all. The user chose the post the question on that site, so we should respect that unless it is off-topic on the original site. | |
| Apr 4, 2015 at 0:48 | comment | added | Werner | @ChristianRau: Originally, almost everything computer-related seemed to be on-topic on Stack Overflow. Now though, there are over 100 child-sites on the SE network with far better specialization than what Stack Overflow can provide, since questions may end up being washed out in the diluted stream of posts. Over time and in general, many on-topic questions on a source site will become far-better suited for some target/child site, despite the fact that there's still some form of on-topic-ness on the source. Dilution is most likely inevitable, but this suggestion might help mitigate that. To each their own though. | |
| Apr 4, 2015 at 0:13 | comment | added | Christian Rau | Meh, I'm not sure I want users associated with a specific site to have actual power in migrating stuff there. That comes at the risk of migrating away perfectly on-topic stuff on the source site just because users would "rather like it" on "their powerhouse". Migration is just too heavy an action to leave it to the lower folks, especially ones who don't have much reputation on the source site. | |
| Apr 3, 2015 at 22:03 | comment | added | Werner | @JonEricson: Haven't, but will look into it, thanks. If this idea is beyond the 30K question scope, yet still interesting, I could migrate it to a full feature-request. | |
| Apr 3, 2015 at 21:41 | comment | added | Jon Ericson Staff | Interesting idea. Have you read Respect the community – your own, and others’? It might help you refine your idea. | |
| Apr 3, 2015 at 21:32 | history | answered | Werner | CC BY-SA 3.0 |