As an attempt to partially address this issue, it is fair to consider that once migration paths open up to StackExchange 2.0 sites, the close dialog is going to get ugly as each site would get its option control and explanatory text:

Here's what I was thinking about to improve the situation:

Migrate the "belongs on" close reasons to "off topic", then let people choose where to migrate to via search.

The stick says, "Yes, those tags are actually about the site."

Initially, with only a handful of sites eligible for migration to, this may be cumbersome and the current solution with one option per site may work better.

However, in roughly a month, there will (hopefully!) be many migration paths opening up shortly and it will just be complicated keeping track of what topics there is a StackExchange about in the first place. Hence why I think search may work better.

  • 1
    If you would like to make adjustments, import this into Balsamiq. You can then use the "Download PNG image" command to get your picture and the "Export mockup" command to let others adjust your mockup. – badp Sep 9 '10 at 8:29
  • 1
    +1*10e12 for this idea! – Yi Jiang Sep 9 '10 at 8:29
  • It's planned for implementation – badp Oct 9 '10 at 8:32

Except for the search part, this is completed.

We need made the conscious decision not to build the search part, we do not want to make people work hard to figure where to migrate to.

Ideally each site can have a list of up to 6 valid migration paths out. If we need to adapt the UI later to handle more paths out we can investigate. But we are hoping this does not become a problem.


Since there will be a lot of sites, I would imagine that the SE team will hand-pick possible migration paths as they go (i.e., Stack Overflow --> Gardening doesn't make much sense). This will be a decent amount of initial work for a new site going forward (increases by n^2), but at least it'll only have to be done once.

That being said, the available list could still be lengthy. Even with ~5 available targets, I can't imagine everyone will be able to keep straight in their mind what is on- and off-topic on every single site.

Therefore, I would suggest adding an area to the box which shows the target site's "What kind of questions can I ask here?" part of the FAQ (and possibly also the "What kind of questions should I not ask here?" if it has meaningful content), so those who have the ability to vote to close have a quick reference to make sure the question will become on topic on the target site. Essentially, something like what we have now for migrating between SU/SF/SO.

  • would you link StackOverflow and Gaming? (PS: the faq bit would be condensed by the site tags, theoretically.) – badp Sep 26 '10 at 15:56
  • @radp - SO and Gaming no, but SO and Game Development. – ChrisF Sep 26 '10 at 15:57
  • @Chris Okay, so what would you do about e.g. CoreWars questions on SO? :) My point here is that it's kind of unrealistic to pick couples of topics that can never possibly have any common area whatsoever. – badp Sep 26 '10 at 15:58
  • @radp: I think the associations would have to be somewhat loose, or exist where there could be misinterpretation of what's allowed to be posted (i.e., between SO and SU, for example). A question is on- or off-topic based on what's asked, so for your example about CoreWars, it would really depend on the content -- it could go either way. It's also possible that that is a corner case. – Jon Seigel Sep 26 '10 at 16:01

You must log in to answer this question.

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