Return to Answer

I would rather this weren't status-declined and appreciate Shog's response as to why this is declined even though it seems to blame all migrated questions rather than addressing votes + or - that are cast by the community that shuns the question itself.

Basically, transferring votes is an odd loophole that enfranchises voters from one site to another site on which they may not even belong.

As a Moderator of a small site - we can either accept or delete a question that arrives due to the votes attached. Our hands are not totally tied, but it seems overly punitive to close something because of the attention it got on another site before it even showed up at our door.

To wit:

• How can I configure Mac Terminal to have color ls output?
• Why is Git not found after installing OS X Lion?
• Got any tips or tricks for Terminal in Mac OS X?

This seems more a case of voting irregularity and when a question shows up with tens or many tens of + votes by people that are not even part of the community now owning the question.

If a feature were proposed to add a function where we let anyone who viewed a question from off-site to adjust the votes on a question, it would be shot down as the craziest idea ever, but this "pre-existing" behavior is grandfathered in as "it's always been that way".

To be specific for a bit. Let's say the median/mean/average votes on a question on Stack Overflow is 85. Let's say the equivalent on a destination site is 5. Now, when a moderately interesting SO question with 20 votes is migrated - you now have a big outlier on a small community.

On the other side - say a question with 100 votes from smallville goes the other way. Now it's just another average voted question.

Worse - down votes on one community don't mean the question is bad or not useful when hosted on a different site with different scope.

I would rather the system discount or discard entirely all votes of the sending community. Having questions arrive with disproportionate vote counts makes the lists that sort by votes not respect the community voting process.

What good comes from moving votes - positive or negative?

We can't go in as moderators and reset votes (like we often reset comments) that are absurd when the question arrives on our sites. The new time-limit restriction on moderation will make this somewhat better, since older questions by their nature have more time to accumulate large net votes.

Still it just seems wrong to me to preserve an external community's set of votes on a question that they themselves have rejected as not their topic of expertise.

I would rather this weren't status-declined and appreciate Shog's response as to why this is declined even though it seems to blame all migrated questions rather than addressing votes + or - that are cast by the community that shuns the question itself.

Basically, transferring votes is an odd loophole that enfranchises voters from one site to another site on which they may not even belong.

As a Moderator of a small site - we can either accept or delete a question that arrives due to the votes attached. Our hands are not totally tied, but it seems overly punitive to close something because of the attention it got on another site before it even showed up at our door.

To wit:

• How can I configure Mac Terminal to have color ls output?
• Why is Git not found after installing OS X Lion?
• Got any tips or tricks for Terminal in Mac OS X?

This seems more a case of voting irregularity and when a question shows up with tens or many tens of + votes by people that are not even part of the community now owning the question.

If a feature were proposed to add a function where we let anyone who viewed a question from off-site to adjust the votes on a question, it would be shot down as the craziest idea ever, but this "pre-existing" behavior is grandfathered in as "it's always been that way".

To be specific for a bit. Let's say the median/mean/average votes on a question on Stack Overflow is 85. Let's say the equivalent on a destination site is 5. Now, when a moderately interesting SO question with 20 votes is migrated - you now have a big outlier on a small community.

On the other side - say a question with 100 votes from smallville goes the other way. Now it's just another average voted question.

Worse - down votes on one community don't mean the question is bad or not useful when hosted on a different site with different scope.

I would rather the system discount or discard entirely all votes of the sending community. Having questions arrive with disproportionate vote counts makes the lists that sort by votes not respect the community voting process.

What good comes from moving votes - positive or negative?

We can't go in as moderators and reset votes (like we often reset comments) that are absurd when the question arrives on our sites. The new time-limit restriction on moderation will make this somewhat better, since older questions by their nature have more time to accumulate large net votes.

Still it just seems wrong to me to preserve an external community's set of votes on a question that they themselves have rejected as not their topic of expertise.

I would rather this weren't status-declined and appreciate Shog's response as to why this is declined. Basically, it seems an odd loophole to send votes from one site to another site.

As a Moderator of a small site - we can either accept or delete a question that arrives due to the votes attached. Our hands are not totally tied, but it seems overly punitive to close something because of the attention it got on another site before it even showed up at our door.

To wit:

• How can I configure Mac Terminal to have color ls output?
• Why is Git not found after installing OS X Lion?
• Got any tips or tricks for Terminal in Mac OS X?

This seems more a case of voting irregularity and when a question shows up with tens or many tens of votes by people that are not even part of the community that ends up with the question, that enfranchises a group of people from outside the community to affect something that now lives on in another community.

If we proposed to add a function where we let anyone who viewed a question from off-site to adjust the votes on a question, it would be shot down as the craziest idea ever, but this "pre-existing" behavior is grandfathered in as "it's always been that way".

To be specific for a bit. Let's say the median/mean/average votes on a question on Stack Overflow is 85. Let's say the equivalent on a destination site is 5. Now, when a moderately interesting SO question with 20 votes is migrated - you now have a big outlier on a small community.

On the other side - say a question with 100 votes from smallville goes the other way. Now it's just another average voted question.

I would rather the system discount or discard the votes of the sending community - not amplify and distort them based on relative populations and voting behaviors. Having questions arrive with disproportionate vote counts makes the lists that sort by votes not respect the community voting process.

What good comes from moving votes - positive or negative?

We can't go in as moderators and reset votes (like we often reset comments) that are absurd when the question arrives on our sites. The new time-limit restriction on moderation will make this somewhat better, since older questions by their nature have more time to accumulate large net votes.

Still it just seems wrong to me to preserve an external community's set of votes on a question that they themselves have rejected as not their topic of expertise.

I would rather this weren't status-declined and appreciate Shog's response as to why this is declined even though it seems to blame all migrated questions rather than addressing votes + or - that are cast by the community that shuns the question itself. 

Basically, transferring votes is an odd loophole that enfranchises voters from one site to another site on which they may not even belong.

As a Moderator of a small site - we can either accept or delete a question that arrives due to the votes attached. Our hands are not totally tied, but it seems overly punitive to close something because of the attention it got on another site before it even showed up at our door.

To wit:

• How can I configure Mac Terminal to have color ls output?
• Why is Git not found after installing OS X Lion?
• Got any tips or tricks for Terminal in Mac OS X?

This seems more a case of voting irregularity and when a question shows up with tens or many tens of + votes by people that are not even part of the community now owning the question.

If a feature were proposed to add a function where we let anyone who viewed a question from off-site to adjust the votes on a question, it would be shot down as the craziest idea ever, but this "pre-existing" behavior is grandfathered in as "it's always been that way".

To be specific for a bit. Let's say the median/mean/average votes on a question on Stack Overflow is 85. Let's say the equivalent on a destination site is 5. Now, when a moderately interesting SO question with 20 votes is migrated - you now have a big outlier on a small community.

On the other side - say a question with 100 votes from smallville goes the other way. Now it's just another average voted question.

Worse - down votes on one community don't mean the question is bad or not useful when hosted on a different site with different scope.

I would rather the system discount or discard entirely all votes of the sending community. Having questions arrive with disproportionate vote counts makes the lists that sort by votes not respect the community voting process.

What good comes from moving votes - positive or negative?

We can't go in as moderators and reset votes (like we often reset comments) that are absurd when the question arrives on our sites. The new time-limit restriction on moderation will make this somewhat better, since older questions by their nature have more time to accumulate large net votes.

Still it just seems wrong to me to preserve an external community's set of votes on a question that they themselves have rejected as not their topic of expertise.

I would rather this weren't status-declined without an official response as to why this is declined.

As a Moderator of a small site - we can either accept or delete a question that arrives due to the votes attached. Our hands are not totally tied, but it seems overly punitive to close something because of the attention it got on another site before it even showed up at our door.

To wit:

• How can I configure Mac Terminal to have color ls output?
• Why is Git not found after installing OS X Lion?
• Got any tips or tricks for Terminal in Mac OS X?

This seems more a case of voting irregularity and when a question shows up with tens or many tens of votes by people that are not even part of the community that ends up with the question, that enfranchises a group of people from outside the community to affect something that now lives on in another community.

If we proposed to add a function where we let anyone who viewed a question from off-site to adjust the votes on a question, it would be shot down as the craziest idea ever, but this "pre-existing" behavior is grandfathered in as "it's always been that way".

To be specific for a bit. Let's say the median/mean/average votes on a question on Stack Overflow is 85. Let's say the equivalent on a destination site is 5. Now, when a moderately interesting SO question with 20 votes is migrated - you now have a big outlier on a small community.

On the other side - say a question with 100 votes from smallville goes the other way. Now it's just another average voted question.

I would rather the system discount or discard the votes of the sending community - not amplify and distort them based on relative populations and voting behaviors. Having questions arrive with disproportionate vote counts makes the lists that sort by votes not respect the community voting process.

What good comes from moving votes - positive or negative?

We can't go in as moderators and reset votes (like we often reset comments) that are absurd when the question arrives on our sites. The new time-limit restriction on moderation will make this somewhat better, since older questions by their nature have more time to accumulate large net votes.

Still it just seems wrong to me to preserve an external community's set of votes on a question that they themselves have rejected as not their topic of expertise.

I would rather this weren't status-declined and appreciate Shog's response as to why this is declined. Basically, it seems an odd loophole to send votes from one site to another site.

As a Moderator of a small site - we can either accept or delete a question that arrives due to the votes attached. Our hands are not totally tied, but it seems overly punitive to close something because of the attention it got on another site before it even showed up at our door.

To wit:

• How can I configure Mac Terminal to have color ls output?
• Why is Git not found after installing OS X Lion?
• Got any tips or tricks for Terminal in Mac OS X?

This seems more a case of voting irregularity and when a question shows up with tens or many tens of votes by people that are not even part of the community that ends up with the question, that enfranchises a group of people from outside the community to affect something that now lives on in another community.

If we proposed to add a function where we let anyone who viewed a question from off-site to adjust the votes on a question, it would be shot down as the craziest idea ever, but this "pre-existing" behavior is grandfathered in as "it's always been that way".

To be specific for a bit. Let's say the median/mean/average votes on a question on Stack Overflow is 85. Let's say the equivalent on a destination site is 5. Now, when a moderately interesting SO question with 20 votes is migrated - you now have a big outlier on a small community.

On the other side - say a question with 100 votes from smallville goes the other way. Now it's just another average voted question.

I would rather the system discount or discard the votes of the sending community - not amplify and distort them based on relative populations and voting behaviors. Having questions arrive with disproportionate vote counts makes the lists that sort by votes not respect the community voting process.

What good comes from moving votes - positive or negative?

We can't go in as moderators and reset votes (like we often reset comments) that are absurd when the question arrives on our sites. The new time-limit restriction on moderation will make this somewhat better, since older questions by their nature have more time to accumulate large net votes.

Still it just seems wrong to me to preserve an external community's set of votes on a question that they themselves have rejected as not their topic of expertise.