I have a minor issue that I think might get solved without much ado. Although currently I can't find a link, quite a sizeable number of people tend to ask questions asking for software recommendations on SO. Even though the FAQ clearly states that that shouldn't be done.

Some questions are still off-topic, even if they fit into one of the categories listed above:

.....Questions asking us to recommend or find a tool, library or favorite off-site resource are off-topic for Stack Overflow as they tend to attract opinionated answers and spam. Instead, describe the problem and what has been done so far to solve it.

Some new users might think that they can probably get away with a couple of questions along those lines even though the FAQ requests that it shouldn't be done. I was wondering if only we could add a link in the FAQ, something along these lines:

Although if you must ask for recommendations check out another wonderful site on the StackExchange network, Software recommendations

Would that help in controlling the problem? This isn't a major feature request per se and nothing hard to do, and anyway there's no reason I can think of that this shouldn't be done.

Also on a related but tangential topic, I am aware that individual questions can be flagged to be "migrated" to other StackExchange sites if that seems appropriate. I recently came across a question that was well formulated but not fit for SO, it was asking us to review the code. I decided that it would be very well, by definition, suited to codereview.se. I proceeded to flag it as such, but was presented with this.

Screenshot of flag dialog

There wasn't any option for codereview. What's the deal with this? Is this a bug? Or is it a matter of reputation, allowing only flags to certain sites. The specific question at hand itself is no longer a problem, I simply flagged it as 'needs moderator attention' with the description 'should be migrated to codereview.se' and that was taken care of. Not that the option not being there created any hassles, I am just curious as to why I didn't get codereview in this list.

Note that the sites listed are not the one's I have accounts on, for instance I have accounts on math.se and physics.se, and I don't have accounts on tex,dba and sharepoint.

  • 12
    Software Recommendations is still in Beta. It will not be available to be a migration target before it graduates, and even then, most questions will most likely not be suitable.
    – Oded
    Mar 3, 2014 at 12:34
  • 2
    Okay, that clears up things. Why the downvote though?
    – Guy
    Mar 3, 2014 at 12:35
  • Dunno. Probably someone who doesn't want Software Rec to end up as a migration target...
    – Oded
    Mar 3, 2014 at 12:36
  • 9
    You don't want to advertise "post your question here" to people who don't bother to read the FAQ on Stack Overflow because they probably won't read the FAQ on the other site either. Mar 3, 2014 at 12:37
  • Yeah maybe. As much as I don't object downvotes it would certainly be more appreciated if along with that they also left a comment expressing their views.
    – Guy
    Mar 3, 2014 at 12:37
  • 1
    @Sabyasachi I did express my views Mar 3, 2014 at 12:38
  • @psubsee2003 ah yes, I didn't forsee that. Trying to clean up SO, we might be sacrificing SoftwareRecs. Right no, bad idea on my part.
    – Guy
    Mar 3, 2014 at 12:38
  • @psubsee2003 I was talking to Oded about the downvote? Oh that was you? I posted my comment before reading the new comment though.
    – Guy
    Mar 3, 2014 at 12:39
  • @Sabyasachi yes, I downvoted first and was typing my comment when you asked. It was definiately a "I disagree with this proposal" downvote. Mar 3, 2014 at 12:40
  • @psubsee2003 sure, those kinds of downvotes are entirely okay. The whole point of a proposal is to check whether people agree or disagree. :p
    – Guy
    Mar 3, 2014 at 12:41
  • @Oded, Software recommendations link might be added to the close reason text. After the question got closed, OP will see the close reason containing a link that will take him/her to another SX site where he/she may get answers to his question. That is not a migration of any kind, just he/she may post his question to there too.
    – Mp0int
    Mar 3, 2014 at 13:09
  • 1
    @FallenAngel at this point in time, that is a bad move. My original comment was trying to address this. If they didn't bother to read the FAQ on SO, why do you think they would do it on SR? All this link would do is say "Post your crap here", and until the site is more mature and has enough community moderation, it might overwhelm the site. Mar 3, 2014 at 13:27

1 Answer 1


Migrations have come up before, and until we survive beta, we're probably going to have to discourage them. If a question doesn't meet the quality criteria of softwarerecs.se, chances are it'll get kicked back to SO. This is true of other beta sites too. Eventually, we'll grow up, be tottering along on our own feet, and be nimble enough to catch or dodge fast moving migrations. Migrations to beta sites are discouraged but not contraindicated, and may be handled differently by different sites.

So, not yet,unless its an absolutely awesome question that just has to be re-homed. When you do get the ability, please use it wisely.

Do not forget, don't migrate crap, there's potential downsides to migrating crap to migration targets, like requests to take those sites off the migration list, and least personally, I think fixing up questions pre-migration, instead of letting them stumble into the line of fire may improve their chances of survival. If its really bad, don't have any mercy, and just eliminate them on the parent sites .

Having a special mention on SO does seem a little scary though. If we are mentioned, it really ought to be accompanied by a warning or two ;)

  • I've found many useful answers from software recommendation questions on Stack Overflow, but we still don't have an option to migrate them. Can we do anything else to prevent these questions from being deleted? Sep 10, 2020 at 20:19

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