7

This question already has an answer here:

Migration flags and votes should be removed from the close menu. Instead, along with "share, edit, close, flag" at the bottom of the question, there is a "migrate" option. When you click this, you will always have the option to migrate to that site's Meta page.

Beyond the meta site, however, the migration options are limited to sites for which you have a user account on (and there should probably be a soft-search menu in here for our particularly eclectic users).

More importantly, whether your migration vote counts as a flag or an actual migration vote depends on your rep on the migration target site.

If you're at 3,000 or more rep on the target site, your vote counts as an actual vote. If you're below this, it shows up in the review queue on the target site.

So for example, let's say I'm a Stack Overflow user with over 3,000 rep. I'm also a user with a DBA account with less than 3,000 rep, and a Code Review account with over 3,000 rep. If I see a question on Stack Overflow which looks like it'd be better posted elsewhere, I can flag it for migration to DBA (if that looks right to me) (which pops it up in the review queue for other DBA users with over 3,000 rep on DBA and SO to vote in agreement with my flag), or I can vote it for migration to Code Review (if CR looks appropriate to me).

Currently, if you try to vote a question to migrate away from Stack Overflow, you are presented with the following menu:

migration list

And it doesn't matter who you are, these are the five migration options you get.

And the fact of the matter is, I know I personally shouldn't be allowed to migrate to TeX or Stats. I don't have an account on either of these sites, nevermind having in the slightest clue what sorts of questions on are on topic there. Meanwhile, I do have a Super User account, and I do have a DBA account, but I have exactly 101 rep on both of these sites. I've never asked a question, posted an answer, or even so much as left a comment. I think I only created an account on these sites because I was thinking about asking a question or I wanted to upvote someone's answer (I have a use for these sites, but not much to contribute).

Meanwhile, there are other Stack Exchange network sites that have some potential for overlap with Stack Overflow.

  • Android Enthusiasts
  • Ask Different
  • Ask Ubuntu
  • Drupal Answers
  • Electrical Engineering
  • Game Development
  • Information Security
  • Programmers
  • Server Fault
  • Theoretical Computer Science
  • Unix & Linux
  • User Experience
  • Webmasters
  • WordPress Development

This list only includes graduated sites whose designs have been completed. There are even more if we count beta sites (or graduates sites whose designs aren't yet completed, like Code Review).

But, I don't think all of these sites should be in the list either.

Compared with another feature request, I am primarily talking about the list of migration targets being dynamically generated for each member based on which other sites they are members of. If you don't even have an account at the target site, how can you possibly know that this question is better suited here than there?

marked as duplicate by random, jonsca, Aza, tchrist, Werner Apr 11 '15 at 5:01

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 1
    The 3k rep on target site is a number I'd be flexible with. I'm more interested in the idea of the migration list being dynamic and based on where you actually have accounts on. – nhgrif Apr 11 '15 at 0:10
  • I like the idea. I think the migration tool is lacking for sure. But it wouldn't solve this problem would it? Whether or not I could, would, or should have an account on Project Managers SO says it should be there so why should it be based on rep? – ChiefTwoPencils Apr 11 '15 at 0:56
  • 2
    What happens while the migration is in review? Is the question closed? If so, what's stopping the OP from just re-posting it on the target site? – yannis Apr 11 '15 at 0:57
  • @ChiefTwoPencils All moderation priviledges are already behind a reputation wall. It makes sense that your reputation on Site A makes you somewhat better at judging what's suitable for being asked on Site A. The question is, why does your reputation on Site A make you an authority on what it suitable on Site B? – nhgrif Apr 11 '15 at 1:21
  • @Yannis What do you mean while the migration is in review? Do you mean the review queue? This is no different from when a user with less than 3000 rep flags a question for any other off-topic reason. It's put to the review queue for that site. The flagging and dumping into review queue is just a way to let people without the priviledge draw attention to the question for those that have the priviledge. The asker isn't noticed that his question has flags already, and wouldn't be noticed in this scenario either. He could see his question has migrate votes. – nhgrif Apr 11 '15 at 1:23
  • @Yannis But users can already see that their question has close votes even before the question is put on hold. This gives the user the opportunity to just self-delete or edit the question to fix it. The user could still self-delete and post to the more appropriate site if that's what they choose to do (perhaps a convenient way for letting the user auto-migrate it themselves might be an option?). If the question is posted to multiple sites, it should be closed on all but the one which is the best fit for the question. I'm not really sure what your primary concern is... – nhgrif Apr 11 '15 at 1:25
  • @random Please take notice to my first comment on this question and my new section at the bottom of the question. The primary difference between my question and the question you suggest is my propsal for a migrate list to be dynamically generated per user based on that user's site memberships. This would have links that presumably wouldn't ever make sense (Electrical Engineering to Role Playing, for example), but the list is based on sites you actuallly have accounts on, so you would know not to make that migration choice. (Unless someone actually managed a DND question on EE)... – nhgrif Apr 11 '15 at 1:27
  • My concern is that with your feature it's possible that a question remains open even after five 3k users agree the question is off topic for their site, just because one or more of them doesn't have sufficient rep on the target site. – yannis Apr 11 '15 at 1:32
  • @Yannis If the question is off-topic for Site A, then surely there exists close reasons for it on Site A. I'm not suggesting that the question shouldn't be closed on Site A. But the otherside of your concern: Why should Site B receive a question which is off-topic for Site B just because five Site A users got together and decided it was definitely on topic for Site B? What qualifies Site A users as having the slightest clue as to what is actually on topic on Site B? – nhgrif Apr 11 '15 at 1:36
  • If the question isn't off topic for the site, then it shouldn't be migrated, even if it might be more suitable for another site. Also, when did I say that I prefer people on site A deciding what's on topic on site B? If I had my way, migrations would be a thing of the past. – yannis Apr 11 '15 at 1:39
  • @Yannis I don't understand your comment. – nhgrif Apr 11 '15 at 1:39
  • What part confuses you? – yannis Apr 11 '15 at 1:40
  • "If the question isn't off topic for the site", which site? "then it should be migrated, even if it might be more suitable for another site", huh? A question on topic on Site A shouldn't be migrated away from Site A. As for your question, "when did I say"... by putting the migration power in the hands of people at the Origin Site, then people at the Origin Site are decided what is on topic for the Destination Site by choosing what gets migrated to it. Nothing off topic for Destination Site should be migrated to Destination Site. – nhgrif Apr 11 '15 at 1:42
  • 1
    Who knows better what's on topic at Destination Site? Destination Site users or Origin Site users? – nhgrif Apr 11 '15 at 1:42
  • Right, I meant shouldn't be migrated, sorry (ninja edited). – yannis Apr 11 '15 at 1:43