For more control over incompetent migrations (see example complaints in posts tagged ), would it make sense to try a new kind review? I would call it

suggested migrations queue

Located at target site, it would contain a list of questions flagged / voted for migration. Target site users with appropriate privileges (eg close voters, or editors etc...) could submit their feedback on whether the proposed question is a good fit for migration.

Source sites could use the feedback provided through this review queue when questions are closed.

In particular, it would be interesting to try this as a remedy against the glitch of current review system referred to in another question as Bandwagon effect in close votes:

...people are agreeing with existing close votes without thoroughly evaluating whether they're accurate.

'Migration review queue' idea has been introduced here:

...Have users on the other site check through migrated posts before they get integrated into the site they are migrated to. We should know what belongs to our own site, don't we?

This idea is similar to one proposed in Add review queue for recent migrations with the difference being that review would be performed prior to migration, not after it. It is also similar to proposal about Accept Migration voting mechanism for migrated questions with the difference being that review doesn't block: migration gets rejected only if target site reviewers were fast enough to counter-vote.

  • 1
    I was for this before, but seeing the disaster which is now review, I can only imagine everyone would just throw out "Looks Good" votes to go for badges not really caring about it, and the task would accomplish absolutely nothing.
    – animuson StaffMod
    Commented Oct 14, 2012 at 12:37
  • 3
    @animuson well this indeed could be a problem at Trilogy. However per my experience with review queue at smaller sites (which too suffer from bad migrations from SO), thoughtless clicking is less of an issue there
    – gnat
    Commented Oct 14, 2012 at 13:00
  • @animuson: If lots of 'Looks Good' results in less migrations then that's got to be a winner.
    – user147520
    Commented Oct 14, 2012 at 13:51
  • What would the user vote-to-close interface look like? Would there be migration paths or would a user be able to vote to migrate to any SE site? When would it go into the migration queue - after 5 votes with a majority for one site or if there was at least one vote to migrate? If votes are split between sites, what would determine what site(s) saw it in their queue? Commented Oct 14, 2012 at 13:55
  • @YannisRizos Maybe I misunderstand part of this proposal. The way I understand it, the question will get 5 votes and then be put into a migration queue at the destination site. Let's say it gets 2 votes for Site A, 2 votes for Site B, and 1 vote for anything else. Does it go into the queue at A and B for review and whoever processes it first gets it? Does it go into no queue and just be closed at the source site? Commented Oct 14, 2012 at 14:50
  • @ThomasOwens Ah, no, it seems I misunderstood your earlier comment. Yeap, that's a problem.
    – yannis
    Commented Oct 14, 2012 at 14:52
  • @Yannis Under the current system, I believe it would not be migrated. But if we have sites accepting incoming requests, I'd rather it go somewhere appropriate where it can help the asker and the rest of the world. I just have no idea how to address this issue. Commented Oct 14, 2012 at 14:53
  • @gnat My problem with this is that you're asking people to spend some time on questions that haven't yet been migrated and there's absolutely no way to know that they will (even if they have 4 migration votes, a moderator at the source site can short-circuit the migration). The review queue for recent migrations proposals makes a little bit more sense, as we'd be asking people to review questions that have already reached our shores.
    – yannis
    Commented Oct 14, 2012 at 15:09
  • @ThomasOwens I was rather thinking of something simpler than vote-to-close interface. Something like single yes-no question whether given question would be on-topic or not => ie, no migration paths at review; these belong to source site, exactly as it is now. As for when would it go to queue I think the earlier the better - ie at first flag / vote, about like currently questions appear in close votes review. As for the cases of split votes - unless I miss something, having question appear at all potential targets currently makes most sense to me.
    – gnat
    Commented Oct 14, 2012 at 20:46
  • 1
    @YannisRizos why would that be a problem? Target site users who are not concerned about migration could simply ignore the review. This makes it possible that there's no feedback from target site at all - if this happens, I would expect migration to happen exactly the way as it is now
    – gnat
    Commented Oct 14, 2012 at 20:48
  • @gnat Feedback for what, the migration hasn't happened yet, I'm afraid we would be creating a "war of the sites" thing. The recent migrations list already exists (10K), making it a review queue and showing it to close voters (3K) is probably all we need (if you saw something in the queue that didn't feel right, you'd only need to vote to close).
    – yannis
    Commented Oct 15, 2012 at 6:01
  • @YannisRizos feedback for suggested migrations, what else? Target site users just choose yes/no/not sure to indicate their judgement on whether suggested migration fits. We already do stuff like that with suggested-edits just fine don't we. As for "war between the sites" I don't quite follow sorry, how could this happen? 3K users queue to review recent migrations list sounds like an interesting idea but it is different in the sense that for wrong migrations, correction would happen after the damage is already done
    – gnat
    Commented Oct 15, 2012 at 6:14
  • @gnat Suggested migrations and suggested edits are not the same thing, suggested edits happen and are reviewed on the same site. And what damage? If invalid migrations are too many to handle, the solution is simple enough, remove the site as a migration target. Right now, after having removed ProgSE as a migration target from SO, our rejection rate is 9%. Our biggest rejection rate is 18%, from Code Review, but that translates to 2 questions.
    – yannis
    Commented Oct 15, 2012 at 6:26
  • 1
    related: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/167464/… Commented Feb 14, 2013 at 9:45
  • related: Create an Accept Migration voting mechanism for migrated questions - not a duplicate, as it suggests a blocking approach, ie no migration happens until target community voting is completed
    – gnat
    Commented Oct 3, 2013 at 9:14

1 Answer 1


Yes, please!

This would be wonderful. The current process for The Workplace, where I'm pretty active, sometimes becomes:

  • other site - "oh this will fit the Workplace even though it's a poor question. Migrate!"
  • Workplace votes to close because it's a poor question
  • Question ends up locked (regardless of if the question "has merit" to become a good, appropriate question or not)
  • Question almost never become unlocked

Note it is possible for people to edit the question before it gets locked. But I would much rather see a poor question closed ASAP than not vote to close in the hopes someone else comes along and edits it.

If there was a queue, I would like to see as options:

  • Approve - question appropriate as-is for migration
  • Hold - question requires edits prior to migration
  • Reject - question is not appropriate for migration
  • "Hold" option doesn't feel safe. Think of it, it assumes question to stay at source site while being edited to match community standards at target site. This means it is going to be hidden from target community (say from WP) and in the same time open to any edits from members of source community (say SO) => this doesn't feel reliable does it? I'd rather have it as "question requires edits right after migration", but can't figure how it can be technically done
    – gnat
    Commented Jul 17, 2013 at 13:40
  • @gnat it's a lot better than a transfered question going to the site and going into the purgatory of "closed migrated question." If there was a way to keep the question in between and not have it vanish to the asker, I would think having an intermediate zone best.
    – enderland
    Commented Jul 17, 2013 at 13:42
  • 4
    @gnat What you are suggesting is exactly my intent though - if a question is not good enough to be migrated then it should not be migrated. An alternate option would be for questions in the "Hold" category to be transfered and closed with something like, "On Hold - pending edits" or something equally nice wording (and obviously not be locked)
    – enderland
    Commented Jul 17, 2013 at 13:44
  • I see. OK, Hold option makes sense now, agree. OH - pending edits would be better yet, but require dev efforts
    – gnat
    Commented Jul 17, 2013 at 13:44

You must log in to answer this question.

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