I believe this post solves the problems mentioned here to the degree that they are solvable. I wish I'd been around long enough to know the "old" design, but the current one isn't a steaming pile, like that question implies. It's workable, but it has issues:
The "Duplicate" reason shows up in two places (top-level menu and
Flagging > another reason > duplicate). When clicked, each leads to the same place (
Flagging > Closing > Duplicate), where you must choose a duplicated question. This belongs in the top-level menu only.
There are two flags for opinion-based questions:
another reason > primarily opinion basedand
another reason > off-topic > recommendation. If a question is likely to attract opinion-based answers, is there a difference between on-topic and off-topic?
This has the sole purpose of making a subtle distinction:
- "This is on-topic, but opinion-based..."
"This is opinion-based and off-topic, since it's not about programming..."
"...so it is not allowed on SO." What is the value of making that distinction? In fact, the first reason may even confuse new users a bit. Simplifying this to "opinion-based questions aren't allowed" will reduce menu size and, as a bonus, avoid any (unlikely, but) possible confusion.
Flagging > another reason > off-topic, "belongs on another site" (i.e. migration) is parallel to "ask on SU instead" and "ask on SF instead." Even worse, the flags aren't even grouped together by "reasoning":
- Ask elsewhere (SU)
- Improve question (Valid code, SSCCE)
- Improve question (Minimal understanding, attempts, expected result)
- Ask elsewhere (SF)
- Improve question (recommendations)
Points 1 and 4 not only clutter the list, but they are utterly useless, and borderline harmful:
- If the question was too bad to be migrated, closing it as "off-topic," but telling the asker "you may be able to get help on S[U/F]" implies that the question is high-enough quality to be asked elsewhere. If that's the case, it should be migrated instead of closed.
- If the question was good enough to be migrated, (obviously) it would be migrated anyway.
Perhaps more sites should be allowed as migration targets. Meta, SU, TeX, Database Administrators, and SharePoint. Not even SF? If SF is good enough to tell the asker they could get help there, why isn't it good enough to migrate to? Not every site has to be available, but that list is quite sparse.
I suggest stealing the box from the newly-implemented StackExchange™ SingleCollider NormalDropdown™ for searching for a site; the difference is that the MigrationCollider would only include approved (by some process) sites.
We use "off-topic" to mean something completely different - "needs improvement, and here they are." Indeed, each (necessary) flag option under that menu provides direction to make a question better. Most of the time it could be accompanied by "be more specific" and askers would have more useful information than "this is off-topic." This phrase should be all but dropped.
The Problem As Depicted In Paint: (redundant flags marked with minimally-obnoxious red arrows)
The Solution: [in text :( ]
Avoid any overlapping between the above scopes, and shuffle the hierarchy a little:
another reason > duplicateis itself a duplicate. (burn)
another reason > off-topic > [SU/SF/Recommendations]are essentially duplicates. (burn)
another reason > off-topicshall be merged into "needs editing", since their options aren't necessarily about a question being off-topic; instead, they're about why the question needs improvement.
- Newly-spawned "needs editing" shall reside in the top-level menu.
The clean, duplicate-free result:
- Duplicate of...
- Choose what it duplicates
- Needs editing because...
- Describe problem, valid code, SSCCE
- Minimal understanding, attempts, expected results
- Unclear what you're asking
- Too broad
- Primarily opinion-based
- Low-quality ("beyond saving")
- Belongs on another Stack Exchange site ("migration") (the new "off-topic")
- Other (needs moderator attention)