I understand that close reasons are supposed to be as clear as possible to the OP, whilst simultaneously not overburdening the person suggesting the close with too much navigation through multiple close reason pages.

So at present to suggest moving to another site I click:

Close > Off-topic > Belongs on another site > pick site > Sharepoint!

BUT (!) frequently the list does not contain the site most suited to migrate to (how many questions get migrated to meta nowadays out of interest?). Is it really too much to ask that people asking/answering questions on this site click a button marked other at the bottom of the site list to be taken to a full list of sites? If this is too much, can the migrate option be moved to the top level of close reasons so that this extra step does not obfuscate the close issue? So the process would become:

Close > Belongs on another site > Pick site > Other site > The right site

I personally find it incredibly frustrating that sites such as Cross Validated are not on the list, despite having ~23k questions whilst both Database Administrators which has been running for 6 months longer than Cross Validated, has only ~ 15k questions and Sharepoint (?!) also has around 26k questions (but has also been active for 6 months longer). I believe the off-topic list could be more flexible and that would give the best directions to OPs about where their question belongs.

I think that as there is a certain barrier to entry to get anything out of the site (the ability to ask a well-formed question or the knowledge to answer it) that this increased flexibility would in no way make the site worse. I do admit I come from the data domain side of things (so Cross Validated would be very useful to have) and users from other disciplines may vehemently disagree with me, but I hope I have made a clear case for offering increased flexibility in the site migration options.

  • 8
    Woah, I'm tempted to downvote this just for your blatant abuse of formatting. The tag syntax is for actual tags, it does more than just change the visual appearance. And of course, inline code formatting is for code. Jul 24, 2013 at 12:09
  • @CodyGray I know, I couldn't think of a better way to highlight it that's all. Sorry for the abuse! Jul 24, 2013 at 12:10
  • 2
    Why do random words need to be highlighted at all? Can't we just read it? Jul 24, 2013 at 12:11
  • And even if random words needed highlighting, have you considered normal and century old emphasising techniques such as bold and italics?
    – J. Steen
    Jul 24, 2013 at 12:12
  • And quoting an entire line with a preceeding > is also useful when you have a sentence or paragraph that needs to standout. But don't overuse that either. Jul 24, 2013 at 12:13
  • @Bart I don't see this as a duplicate because it's a feature request. And thank you for reformatting appropriately. Jul 24, 2013 at 12:14
  • 3
    There...fixed it. Now don't do that again please. You won't like me when you do that again....because I....well....I'd probably edit it again....
    – Bart
    Jul 24, 2013 at 12:15
  • 1
    There are like 9,000 of these feature requests for specific sites. They've all been declined for the same couple of reasons: (1) overcomplicating the UI and violating "don't make me think", (2) it's hard to know when and where to migrate a question, so we only unlock the most common paths. Jul 24, 2013 at 12:15
  • 1
    Long story short @SimonO101: we suck at migrating. That's why there are only a few. They are (afaik) based on the percentage of successful migrations. Allowing users to choose would result in a migration of crap, unfortunately.
    – Bart
    Jul 24, 2013 at 12:16
  • @Bart understood! Sorry everyone for abusive formatting. Can we forget about the bad start now and discuss the issue. This is similar to the linked questions, but my suggestion is unique (as far as I could tell). Jul 24, 2013 at 12:16
  • @SimonO101 how is it unique? You want a list of all sites that the user can pick from) to migrate a question Jul 24, 2013 at 12:18
  • 3
    @SimonO101 If that is the core of your proposal, then remove your entire discussion on adding additional sites to the list or allowing for the selection of all sites.
    – Bart
    Jul 24, 2013 at 12:22
  • 4
    @SimonO101 No, because the statistics tell us otherwise. It's not too complicated. It's that users collectively suck at migrating. And it also means the dupe votes here are correct. No need to have the discussion again.
    – Bart
    Jul 24, 2013 at 12:25
  • 2
    @SimonO101 I actually agree, the migrate anywhere feature would be nice to have. The problem is, as a collective whole, the community sucks are migrating questions. Someone would see a networking question and say "this should be migrated to Server Fault" without knowing what Server Fault is all about. Then 4 others would see the vote for migration and also vote the same. Then it leaves the other site to have to clean up the crap coming from SO that doesn't really belong. And most SE sites do not have substantial enough community moderation to deal with the volume. Jul 24, 2013 at 12:53
  • 1
    @Simon That's exactly why we don't allow migration to any site. Because people would vote to migrate questions like those you linked. They should be closed outright instead. The cardinal rule of migration is don't migrate crap. Too much crap gets migrated if we unlock all the paths. Jul 25, 2013 at 9:43