69

Currently the migration path options from SO are:

  • Meta.SO
  • Serverfault
  • SuperUser
  • Webmasters
  • Programmers

If we are going to be limited to 5 options, shouldn't we periodically re-evaluate which sites are most appropriate?

Migration stats (10k only) indicate that the top sites for the last 90 days are:

  1. Superuser - 564 - 5% rejected
  2. ServerFault - 278 - 10% rejected
  3. Tex - 157 - 13% rejected
  4. DBA - 144 - 2% rejected
  5. Sharepoint - 127 - 1% rejected
  6. Programmers - 126 - 26% rejected
  7. CodeReview - 100 - 3% rejected
  8. Meta.SO - 81 - 18% rejected
  9. Wordpress - 75 - 14% rejected
  10. Webmasters - 58 - 8% rejected

All these migrations for sites out of the list required a flag and a moderator to process it. This is just extra work for the mod team!

If we had the top 5 destinations by volume as the 5 options, we would have had a net savings of 160 flags to be processed. I suspect we will actually see these numbers change quite a bit if it's easier for users to put questions in the appropriate spot without moderator intervention.

Can we have a review of the migration path list based on migration volume?

Think of the flags!

11
  • 2
    Generally agree, but Meta will always be a migration path, so Meta + top 4 non-Meta instead of top 5?
    – yoozer8
    Jun 5 '12 at 17:56
  • 1
    @Jim That's an option. Based on the numbers it may still be more efficient to flag those posts for moderator attention, though.
    – JNK
    Jun 5 '12 at 18:00
  • 31
    Programmers is sixth? Yay!, please remove us from the migration list asap!
    – yannis
    Jun 5 '12 at 18:05
  • 1
  • 3
    @Jim And I'm saying it may be worthwhile to re-evaluate that logic. Seven other sites get more migrations than meta, and 4 of those require manual flagging right now.
    – JNK
    Jun 5 '12 at 18:12
  • 2
    Do the stats include rejections? IMO any site with a high rejected/total ratio ougjt to be removed. Sometimes community migrations aren't so great. Jun 5 '12 at 18:15
  • @TimManishEarth Good point, I'll add rejection numbers.
    – JNK
    Jun 5 '12 at 18:16
  • 3
    @yannis the 26% rejected supports your case. Jun 5 '12 at 18:30
  • 1
    @TimManishEarth That can't be right, the ProgSE stats show a different (larger) number.
    – yannis
    Jun 5 '12 at 18:32
  • 1
    These numbers are probably right, but they aren't what is being portrayed here. They are number of incoming migrations, not outgoing: that is, SO received 126 questions from Programmers and rejected 26% of them.
    – user149432
    Jun 6 '12 at 6:24
  • 2
    @MarkTrapp Nope, the ProgSE -> SO rejection is 5% (144 questions). There were 126 questions migrated from SO to ProgSE, but the rejection is 36%.
    – yannis
    Jun 6 '12 at 13:47
61

We've replaced Programmers and Webmasters migration paths with TeX and DBA, respectively.

Enjoy. :)

enter image description here

9
  • 10
    How plausible would automatically updating this be, based on migration stats? Say every month or so.
    – Toomai
    Jun 5 '12 at 19:31
  • 4
    @Toomai Hm, that would be too easy to game, I'd reject migrations just so as Programmers to not get back in that list.
    – yannis
    Jun 5 '12 at 19:37
  • 2
    @YannisRizos I think he meant based on # of moves, not # of rejects :P. We all know Programmers has the highest number of rejects
    – Ben Brocka
    Jun 5 '12 at 22:50
  • 13
    This is probably worthwhile, but I wish I could type in what I want directly. This is still a pitiful number of our sites...
    – sarnold
    Jun 6 '12 at 2:40
  • You interacted as mod in this specific case, but that doesn't answer the question of OP in an appropriate manner nor does it solve the problem. Jul 24 '20 at 12:03
  • @RobertS-ReinstateMonica Not sure what you're referring to. I acted as an employee in this case and it looks like we did review the migration list and updated it based on the results. What exactly is unaddressed? If another review is needed, please make a new post on MSO.
    – Adam Lear StaffMod
    Jul 24 '20 at 17:12
  • @AdamLear I appreciate your work, don't get me wrong. OP was satisfied and accepted this answer but this is only a specific solution. The question "Can we have a review of the migration path list based on migration volume?" and "Update Migration Path List for Non-Moderators" itself, desires a kind of automatic balance without the need of moderator intervention at all. That's what I wanted to say. The answer satisfies OP but not the intention of the question itself. Jul 24 '20 at 18:54
  • @RobertS-ReinstateMonica It's been a few years, so my memory may be hazy, but I'm pretty sure we interpreted and handled this as a one-off request at the time (which wasn't uncommon). I feel like coming in now and saying this response was incorrect is a stretch, but I do see your point in general. If you want to make a "migration paths should be automatically reviewed and adjusted" type of feature request, your best bet is to make a new post instead of trying to resurrect something long handled and forgotten.
    – Adam Lear StaffMod
    Jul 24 '20 at 19:56
  • @AdamLear People recently linked me to here because I had a same thought but unfortunately this solution didn't bring me, as someone outstanding from the specific situation, something. Thank you for your work nonetheless in 2012 to handle the problem. And yes it's a long time ago. I remember only few things by the moment from 8 years ago, too. I guess I'll follow your advice and maybe make a new post about it. Jul 25 '20 at 7:20

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .