43

Most other sites do not want many (if any) of our posts migrated there.

Remove the mention of "Super User" from the standard off-topic close reasons

Be careful when recommending Code Review to askers

Migration of code questions from Stack Overflow to Code Review

The asker is directed to another Stack Exchange site, even though it would be off topic there

3000 rep is required to vote to migrate a post, yet there are many mod flags asking for question migration. They are well meaning, but fail to understand that we're not the experts of the target site. We are reluctant to migrate anything, unless the flagger has a high rep on the target site. All else involves taking each post to the target site's chat room and asking them if they want it (if it's on topic). More often than not, they don't want it. Essentially, it's a flawed process.

and confusing ...

A moderator declined my migration flag—what are the policies for flagging questions for migration?

Why was this question migrated from Stack Overflow to EE.SE, and can we please revert that?

It is clear many users do not understand the migration process and it's not their fault as the UI directs them to it.

Really it's the target site that should be flagged for a migration request. As they are the one's able to determine if it's on topic for their site. With the caveat, that if a question is on topic for this site, there is no reason to migrate it. Being ontopic for another site does not make it off topic for this site.

What can we do to improve on the migration system?

30
  • 3
    I agree it's a flawed process, but I'm not sure if it can be fixed...
    – user247702
    Commented Jul 27, 2018 at 11:09
  • 25
    Yes. 'Migration' should be restricted to a canned 'Off-topic here, may be on-topic at another SE site'. It is not incumbent on SO curators to find on-topic sites for OP's questions.
    – Martin James
    Commented Jul 27, 2018 at 11:09
  • 6
    What's the ratio of successful migration vs requested migrations? Is the migration option useful at all?
    – yivi
    Commented Jul 27, 2018 at 11:12
  • 9
    Requests for migration should actually be handled by both the source and the target site's mods, to ensure the question is off topic on one and on topic on the other. Although having each migration request go through 2 mods (if both approve it) might be too much work.
    – Bernhard Barker
    Commented Jul 27, 2018 at 11:13
  • 3
    @yivi 10k+ users can see that at: stackoverflow.com/tools/posts/migrated/stats
    – Jon Clements
    Commented Jul 27, 2018 at 11:13
  • 2
    @JonClements Although those are only things that actually got migrated, not everything that was flagged for migration, right?
    – Bernhard Barker
    Commented Jul 27, 2018 at 11:15
  • Ok @Jon. I'll either wait until I reach 10k or until a 10k user share those stats with us the little people :). I haven't seen many examples of good questions asked in the wrong site, but maybe it's simply that I do not have enough information.
    – yivi
    Commented Jul 27, 2018 at 11:15
  • 3
    @yivi: yes, the migration options are used. In the past 90 days, our community and moderators migrated 125 posts to Cross Validated, 8% of those were rejected. 72 went to Databases, 9% rejected, Super User 49 (5%) and Code Review 17 (17%). There is a long tail of single-digit migrations. See our statistics page (25k+ users only).
    – Martijn Pieters
    Commented Jul 27, 2018 at 11:15
  • 2
    @Stijn of course it can be fixed! Or even made worse.
    – user3956566
    Commented Jul 27, 2018 at 11:23
  • @Dukeling that's right, that doesn't include the custom mod flags asking for migration
    – user3956566
    Commented Jul 27, 2018 at 11:24
  • 2
    @YvetteColomb May I suggest that you add the statistics on migration (like the ones Martijn Pieters commented with) to the question? They make a big impact in the validity of the "getting rid of it all" answer below, and are important to any justification about what to do with the migration system.
    – Davy M
    Commented Jul 27, 2018 at 16:16
  • 1
    cross-site duplicate: Suggested migrations review at target site
    – gnat
    Commented Jul 27, 2018 at 19:49
  • 3
    @MartijnPieters stats are for 25k+ users only. At least, with my 14,000 reputation, I can't access it.
    – Cœur
    Commented Jul 30, 2018 at 4:06
  • @Cœur: corrected my comment. That's the problem with moderator access, I can't remember what the various access levels are.
    – Martijn Pieters
    Commented Jul 30, 2018 at 10:52
  • 1
    We should migrate such posts to the other sites but put them in the First Posts and/or Help & Improvement queues for the respective sites before the questions appear on the sites' question lists.
    – TylerH
    Commented Jul 30, 2018 at 14:26

5 Answers 5

Reset to default
10

In the past 90 days, our community and moderators migrated 125 posts to Cross Validated, 8% of those were rejected. 72 went to Databases, 9% rejected, Super User 49 (5%) and Code Review 17 (17%). There is a long tail of single-digit migrations. See our statistics page (10k+ users only). – Martijn Pieters♦ 2 days ago

If under 10% of the migrations by SO mods are being rejected by the target sites, what problem are we trying to solve here?

There may be other problems surrounding it that do need to be solved, but improving the migration hit rate for our mods isn't going to help those problems any more than switching to a faster UTF-8 library is going to help slow stdout buffering.

If there is a related problem—if, say, the mods had to filter through 800 bad SU flag and migrate votes to find the 49 they passed on to SU—then that's what needs to be fixed. Reduce the 751 bad flags and votes, not the 2 mistakes the mods may have made in filtering them. But we apparently don't have stats on that (from the comments).

From a comment by Yvette Colomb:

It's the number of flags we have to migrate posts. Lots, most of them are declined.

OK, so there is a problem. But it's not the one implied by this question, and it's not one that would be addressed by the proposed solution.

We clearly need to come up with ways to change migration flagging so most of the flags that would be declined don't come up in the first place. I have no idea what that would take. Maybe:

  • Rewording things, or reorganizing the UI;
  • Providing more information about migration;
  • Making flagging take more effort or thought;
  • Adding some kind of automated filtering;
  • Something I can't even imagine but someone cleverer can…

But dumping all of those bad flags on a different group of mods won't fix the problem of too many bad flags.

It could fix a different problem, if our mods were not doing a good job—but, given Martijn's statistics, that problem doesn't seem to exist. And, even if it did, that wouldn't have any effect on the problem we're actually trying to solve here.

3
  • 2
    It's the number of flags we have to migrate posts. Lots, most of them are declined.
    – user3956566
    Commented Jul 30, 2018 at 14:36
  • 2
    @YvetteColomb OK, then that is the problem we need to solve. We need fewer bad flags. Making some different group of people deal with all those bad flags doesn't solve that. And I don't think it solves anything else. I edited my answer to clarify.
    – abarnert
    Commented Jul 30, 2018 at 16:50
  • 3
    Perfect. Yes you've gotten to the heart of the problem. Migration was one of the reasons I wrote this post. It received mixed reactions. I've been quite strict with my flagging and will decline flags that could have been raised with a standard flag. I'm not sure if it's made a difference. The thinking behind it is to teach people what's not ok to flag at least. Not everyone is up to date with meta and the site's systems.
    – user3956566
    Commented Jul 30, 2018 at 18:14
32

Instead of improving it, I'd rather recommend getting rid of it at all. It's on the OP to choose the proper site for their question. If they mistakenly post it on the wrong site, it's less effort for them to delete and repost than it is for a proper migration process to take place. This means:

  • remove the migration flag
  • decline mod-flags asking for migration if not from the OP
  • tell OPs asking for migration to dig into the targets help site and then reask their question if appropriate

This takes the burden of checking the appropriateness away from the mods and puts it in the OPs, that should have it anyways in the first place.

17
  • 12
    You need to take into account that such posts can and do gain quality answers from time to time, which in many cases are worth preserving. This is what migration is for, not for the question asker, but for answers given.
    – Martijn Pieters
    Commented Jul 27, 2018 at 11:17
  • 1
    Migration example where the answer came with the post: Interpreting the summary function in Linear regression (Using R), the answer had been upvoted 2 before votes by community members migrated it over to CV.
    – Martijn Pieters
    Commented Jul 27, 2018 at 11:20
  • 7
    @MartijnPieters perhaps restrict the migration flag for answered questions only?
    – user3956566
    Commented Jul 27, 2018 at 11:22
  • Another example: "cd : permission denied" though group has access, 2 votes on the answer before a moderator migrated the question. The question was flagged for mod attention before the answer was posted, but the community did close the post as off-topic minutes after the answer.
    – Martijn Pieters
    Commented Jul 27, 2018 at 11:24
  • @YvetteColomb there isn't a "migration flag" by itself though. It requires either 5 people to vote "belongs on another site" in the close dialog (of which there's only a few choices), or someone requests it via a custom mod flag for other sites.
    – Jon Clements
    Commented Jul 27, 2018 at 11:24
  • 1
    @MartijnPieters Shouldn't we rather try to see if we can edit the question in shape for SO in those cases? (as they can't be self-deleted with upvoted answers in place anyways)
    – Sebastian Proske
    Commented Jul 27, 2018 at 11:25
  • 2
    @YvetteColomb: that really would put the horse before the cart. The point is to improve the experience and reduce mistaken posting. Ideally a post is closed or migrated before there is an answer.
    – Martijn Pieters
    Commented Jul 27, 2018 at 11:25
  • 1
    @SebastianProske: inprove how? If they are really off-topic here but on-topic elsewhere, the better solution is to migrate.
    – Martijn Pieters
    Commented Jul 27, 2018 at 11:26
  • 4
    @MartijnPieters If they are really off-topic one should refrain from answering.
    – Sebastian Proske
    Commented Jul 27, 2018 at 11:27
  • @JonClementswe need some UI regex checking for the words "migrate" "belongs" etc and it won't allow that input in the custom flag reason and says why or something more precise .. you understand what I'm trying to say?
    – user3956566
    Commented Jul 27, 2018 at 11:27
  • 1
    @Yvette preventing on such simple words mod flags is not a good idea. If we see it, we can ignore it. We don't need to put hurdles in the way of users trying to inform us we need to look at things. Besides, people will just use different words etc... etc...
    – Jon Clements
    Commented Jul 27, 2018 at 11:29
  • @JonClements yeh, you're right
    – user3956566
    Commented Jul 27, 2018 at 11:29
  • @SebastianProske: absolutely, which is why posts should be handled quickly! Not everyone realises a post is off-topic however, and sometimes that means we are going to have to handle good quality posts in the wrong place.
    – Martijn Pieters
    Commented Jul 27, 2018 at 11:34
  • 2
    @MartijnPieters I understand your point - but I think that this is a price we can pay to remove the migration hassle, considering the fact that upvoted answers prevent self-deletion and roomba, thus should remain visible if there is worth to them.
    – Sebastian Proske
    Commented Jul 27, 2018 at 11:55
  • 1
    In consideration of @MartijnPieters's observations, perhaps the thing to do is to remove "belongs on another site" as a close reason, but make migration an alternative to deleting for questions that are closed as off-topic but have at least one answer.
    – John Bollinger
    Commented Jul 27, 2018 at 13:14
16

Migration has always been a confusing topic for everyone involved. Seems like there is a weekly question on meta about adding more choices to the list and/or complaints about "why isn't site 'x' a choice". And even when the right choice is there, you end up with crap getting migrated and forcing 2 different communities to deal with it.

Then you add in the "off-topic" close reasons that suggest Server Fault and Super User. This issue has been brought up before and at least three users (the OP of that question and the 2 upvoters) who assumed that getting a question closed for that reason meant it was a good candidate for migration. There's also a feature request from 4 years ago from a Super User mod suggesting to remove the links to the specific sites, but has not been implemented.

The problem with both migration and the close reasons is they are attempts at helping users but more often than not tends to confuse as much (if not more) as it helps. As Martijn points out, migration has a valuable purpose to preserve great content instead of letting it get downvoted into oblivion or hidden on the wrong site. And the intent of the close reasons was to make users aware other sites in the network exist.

So the solution isn't to remove migration or make it more restrictive, but to make the experience better by helping users ask their question in the right spot to begin with, and provide them with additional support throughout the process

Before posting a question...

If the user has no other accounts other than SO and doesn't have a lot of rep on SO, or does not have an indication of being experienced with other SE sites (maybe by looking for a minimum rep on at least 3 sites in the network), then before allowing the question to be posted, provide them with a wizard-like set of options to walk them through the right site to ask. It is possible the user just hasn't learned that SO isn't the right place to ask any and all questions.

The goal here is to help catch bad questions before they are asked and help the user learn where if there is a more appropriate site.

Of course, some users are just going to click through to get their questions asked as quickly as possible, but these are the users who aren't likely going to benefit from any guidance anyway. This idea is targeting the users who want to ask good questions in the right spot and get a good answer.

If the question gets more than 2 "off-topic" close votes...

Give them the same wizard like choices to help identify if the question is on-topic. If the result does identify a good site, then help them reformulate the question and re-ask it on the new site (if it doesn't have answers), or directly migrate if it does have an answer.

If the question is closed as off-topic (not if unclear/too broad)...

Instead of mentioning a specific site in the network as part of the close reason, provide a link to the wizard and help any users finding that question identify the the right site to ask that or similar questions.

What should it look like...

I'm not good with UI design but here's a concept flow chart of how such a "site finder" could work. It may need some more choices and the phrasing probably needs work, but the concept is about directed and sequential questions on what is on-topic. Each decision box should have ample guidance (and/or links to guidance), and all links to sites should go right to the /help page and not to the front page or to the ask question page.

Similar as to the specific question about Software Recommendations, there could be other directed decision trees for other programming sites. There could be a question about reviewing working code which could help users ask good Code Review questions. There could be one about the design or lifecycle process that points to Software Engineering. There could even be options to present users with multiple matching sites so they could pick the one they think is best (for example a WordPress question could help point the user to SO or Wordpress.SE). You could even include a "Is this part of a homework assignment" and link to guidance on asking good homework questions.

One item I specifically left out is any kind of link or reference to meta as to avoid it being a dumping ground for off-topic questions. But if the design was very carefully done, you could provide some sort of link to getting more help on meta or in chat.

Site Picker Wizard Flow Chart Example

What about migration

Maybe we don't need to touch migration itself (for now). If you are able to help users find the right spot initially, and make this UI easy to find or link too, the community (and mods) could use it to help point people to other sites without referencing a specific site. And for the few cases that still need migration, then the existing UI would work.

But you need to make it easier for sites to moderated migrated questions to help keep their site clean.

1
  • I disagree on asking 3-4 intent questions to migrate a poorly asked off-topic question. And if the question is in a foreign language, do we have to go to the trouble to translate it to see if it's on topic for ru.stackoverflow.com or similar? Better simplify the process following Sebastian Proske recommendation.
    – Cœur
    Commented Jul 30, 2018 at 4:03
7

psubsee2003's answer is interesting and might work, but it requires a major overhaul of the process of asking a question, so it is not clear if it is realistic at this point.

A simpler option would be to change the close dialog for migrations to filter the available option only to sites where the close voter has enough participation.

Screenshot of the close for migration dialog

How you measure participation is an open issue, and it could be as simple as a reputation limit (i.e. a new privilege that you acquire). Another option would be to estimate the knowledge of the user by counting the number of pages he/she has viewed, voted for/against, answered, etc.

Some sites could be excluded completely from the list, if they are deemed totally irrelevant in scope (such as Judaism.SE, Cooking.SE). Others could be added, like Unix.se or https://askubuntu.com/ (but only for the close voters that qualify).

6
  • How would this work for the next close voter that isn't active on that site?
    – rene
    Commented Jul 29, 2018 at 7:00
  • 1
    @rene: One option would be for the first voter to unlock the option for the rest. Another option would be to skip the question, or use a different close reason.
    – user000001
    Commented Jul 29, 2018 at 7:04
  • Only the first option would potentially lead to a migration then (with a majority vote) where I beg to differ if the quality of the migrations would improve much. The other two options would have the same effect as removing the migration option.
    – rene
    Commented Jul 29, 2018 at 7:11
  • 1
    While it might not be something to consider in this phase but I do think there is a serious performance impact with this feature for the participation bit, specially if you take into account that some users have lots of accounts. Maybe this complexity can be somewhat reduced if you only show the sites a user has added to their your communities list in the hamburger menu..
    – rene
    Commented Jul 29, 2018 at 7:18
  • 1
    Not sure about that. For example in the [bash] tag there several users that have participated in the sites I mentioned above. I'm guessing the situation is similar for other tags as well. You only need 3 voters to get majority for migration instead of close, and that could be tweaked again. But I concede that my answer is no longer as simple as I thought :)
    – user000001
    Commented Jul 29, 2018 at 7:19
  • @rene: that is a good idea
    – user000001
    Commented Jul 29, 2018 at 7:19
3

I like where pubsee's head is with his answer, but I think a wizard just for this is too much, plus the devs are already working on a general/catch-all wizard.

Instead, how difficult would it be for the site to add some smart real-time detection to the Ask a Question page? If a user is writing a question and the following criteria are met:

  • Fewer than 3 positively-scored, open questions on this site (just an example; maybe not even necessary).

  • Uses verbiage or a tag that has the name of another site in it, like or or verbiage that might be strongly linked to another site's list of topics "How to configure IIS on a server" or "How can I write this more elegantly/better?" or "Where can I find/Looking for a..."

Then a modal or banner should appear saying something like

"It looks like you're asking a question about [insert topic here]. Did you know we have a site dedicated directly to that? Click Here to automatically ask your question there, instead!"

A large list of rules would need to be maintained, but it could also be tailored specifically to the highest percentage of migration requests that moderators get... e.g. probably less work done to detect plant identification questions and more work on detecting questions appropriate for Super User, Code Review, Cross-Validated, etc.

This would have the benefit of removing the bad 'migration' taste out of everyone's mouth because it would handle it before the question is ever posted, and will allow the network to operate as it should, which in my opinion means sites should handle questions on their topics (disregarding situations where questions are on-topic at multiple sites), regardless of whether the question is high quality or low quality (other sites have review queues for new/low-quality posts, too).

5
  • It seems that your like the word 'verbiage'? (I learn't something new today, thanks).
    – Script47
    Commented Jul 30, 2018 at 16:41
  • @Script47 Before you go adding "verbiage" to the verbiage you use to express yourself: the traditional meaning of "wording and/or phrasing" is almost dead in UK/Commonwealth English; instead, it just means "wordiness", but with even more negative connotations of boringness or pomposity than you'd expect.
    – abarnert
    Commented Jul 30, 2018 at 17:04
  • @abarnert Actually that's flip-flopped from when I learned it. The "wording and/or phrasing" is the secondary meaning, the original usage meant "excessive wordiness". But I am in the US.
    – TylerH
    Commented Jul 30, 2018 at 19:00
  • @TylerH It looks like you're right: the "phrasing" meaning is an American innovation, not Americans preserving the original. Even more reason to be careful using it around Brits. After all, when they complain about you butchering the language, usually they're wrong, so you can just laugh at them; when they're actually right… well, you don't actually have to feel embarrassed (what's the point of being American if not never having to feel embarrassed about anything?), but still…
    – abarnert
    Commented Jul 30, 2018 at 19:03
  • 1
    @abarnert If ever a Brit complains to me I just tell them we stopped listening to them in 1776 :-P
    – TylerH
    Commented Jul 30, 2018 at 19:03

You must log in to answer this question.