Timeline for What outgoing migration paths should we have?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
34 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:56 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathematica.stackexchange.com/ with https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:49 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://academia.stackexchange.com/ with https://academia.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:44 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stats.stackexchange.com/ with https://stats.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:34 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://tex.stackexchange.com/ with https://tex.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Sep 4, 2013 at 5:20 | comment | added | Kaveh | @Federico, quid explained some of them. The short answer is essentially for the same reasons we don't want user migration paths from Stack Overflow and Mathematics to MO. | |
| Sep 3, 2013 at 14:03 | comment | added | user9072 | That being said, I agree scicomp is a very natural idea; I just did not discuss it as I knew it was impossible it being in beta. | |
| Sep 3, 2013 at 14:01 | comment | added | user9072 | c) if there are too many possibilities it'd get tricky to find a consensus about the right site. Do we really want to decide here if a question is better for cs or tcs? This could be tricky. Alos, since that disucssion it came up that some people do not like this migration idea at all (and some of them vote to close a lot). So community-driven migration seems still more tricky to achieve if some do not participate in it (to be clear, I do not want to criticize those, but just point out the consequence). In any case, I think just path for the most frequent and rest via flags to mods is good. | |
| Sep 3, 2013 at 13:57 | comment | added | user9072 | @FedericoPoloni I was rather in favor of having path open so I am not that well placed to reply. But, some problems: a) people not "understanding" the sites to which they migrate, actually migrating question someplace where they are off-topic, too. Of course this could be avoided if people just did not do that but well. b) migrating being used in as a "weapon" in open/close off/on topic "fights". The way some people suggested target sites to me suggestsed this was prevalent. It was more like "let us get rid of some 'nonsense' from MO" than "let's try to find a good place for some question" | |
| Sep 2, 2013 at 17:22 | comment | added | Federico Poloni | @Kaveh (and quid) I am reading this discussion only now, and I find it difficult to follow your argument on why it is a bad thing to have multiple migration paths open to non-moderators. Could you please expand on it or link me to the relevant discussion? | |
| Jun 29, 2013 at 12:53 | comment | added | user9072 | To sum all this up in general: if we can habe a path to math.SE, which we do, I see really no reason not to have one to tex.SE and perhaps mathematica.SE which is what I suggested. General concerns about potential conflicts might be better adressed to for example Andres Caicedo, suggesting all kind of things, not me. | |
| Jun 29, 2013 at 12:49 | comment | added | user9072 | @Kaveh ...the reason being that I do not think the community's judgement will be precise enough, and this would rather cause annoyance on the site. But this is not so for tex.SE; now, the tex question we get here sometimes might not be good questions, and will often be duplicates (but also a vtc as dup answers) as Andrew Stacey explained in a deleted answer (while saying the should still be migrated ), but still they are questions that abstractly belong to tex.SE not MO, same for mathematica.SE, and the community seems well able to recognize if a question is about some flavor of tex or not. | |
| Jun 29, 2013 at 12:46 | comment | added | user9072 | @Kaveh And for your question whether I would be happy if SO could migrate here: no I would be against this and strictly so. As I explained on the board now called tea the point here is that almost all questions somebody might consider migrating from there to some math site are not only not a good fit for MO but likely a better fit for existing sites, not only math.SE, but also scicomp.SE, stats.SE, or maybe the general CS or perhaps TCS but also this last should be rare. Please, also note that I specifically did not suggest a path to TCS.SE but could imagine one to the/a general CS site... | |
| Jun 29, 2013 at 12:43 | comment | added | user9072 | @Kaveh ...less conflict as it is easier to follow the question there. But let us ignore academia.SE for the moment. And return to my actual suggestions: which is tex.SE and perhaps mathematica.SE do you see more potential for conflicts arising from migrations of these questions than for math.SE? This seems difficult to imagine for me. So, I would say either let us close the math.SE path too if this is such a source of problems (and this one actually could be one) or also open at least tex.SE which seem unproblematic as anything. | |
| Jun 29, 2013 at 12:38 | comment | added | user9072 | @Kaveh ...by contrast, since the existence of tex.SE, I think the handling of tex questions caused little if any at all conflict. (Before that it was leave it here as there is no other place, yes/no with differing oppinions). Now, it seems rather agreed upon that tex.SE is better and that's that. And, actually, I think there is a somehow similar concensus emerging regarding academia.SE, many a question of this type draws instantly a comment (also by non-high-rep users!) that academia.SE would be a better fit and various question were quasi-migrated to there. And now this should even cause.. | |
| Jun 29, 2013 at 12:32 | comment | added | user9072 | @Kaveh: ...*locked* needing a mod to undo, and even invisible for most users. So would you propse this? And, then, yes I agree (and said all along) that migrations could lead to controversy like closure, and the fact that it involves another site rather makes it more problematic also that it can not be easily undone. But that being said and as you acknowledge I think also migrations to math.SE have the potential of being problematic, and this path is open. The latest conflicts on MO about open/close rather concerned questions that would if anything be migrated to math.SE not say academia... | |
| Jun 29, 2013 at 12:26 | comment | added | user9072 | @Kaveh: the procedure vote to close as off-topic, mention the idea of migration, and flag for mods to do it seems somewhat workable, although it still feels inconvenient. And, in the end there are not that many closures either on MO (I think maybe ten on average, rather less, at least excluding spam that gets flag-deleted but is also rare; I am not sure where I could look this up here, but from deletetion-activity on the old site I believe to know this quite well as I saw all closed days-wise). In that sense we could also do away the spam-flags, it is rare, the question becomes... | |
| Jun 29, 2013 at 4:59 | comment | added | Kaveh | @quid, and add to these the fact that MO has relatively very high frequency of reopenings/reclosings of closed questions. | |
| Jun 29, 2013 at 4:54 | comment | added | Kaveh | @quid, the issues that bad migration cause is for users, e.g. would users on MO be happy if there was a user migration path from Stack Overflow to here? I don't think so. Or if questions that some MO users think are fine here but a few high reputation users think are more suitable for say Mathematics or Academia are migrated there would these users be happy? And these are just two examples. Considering the disagreements over tea about even suggesting some question are more suitable for Mathematics it is possible that even migration to Mathematics would cause some friction. | |
| Jun 29, 2013 at 4:48 | comment | added | Kaveh | @quid, I generally agree, however I think for the particular task of migration and with issues experienced over the network regarding migration, user migration paths are opened with the main goal of reducing flags that moderators need to deal with. In other words, AFAIU, there needs to be large enough posts needing migrations to another site to justify opening of a migration path. ps: on cstheory users don't wait for migration and vote to close off-topic posts, a moderator can reopen the question and migrate it if needed, and as long as there are not many such cases this works fine. | |
| Jun 28, 2013 at 18:31 | comment | added | user9072 | @Kaveh: ...and for migrations this seems particularly relevant. How does this work: we tell OP they need to wait until their question will be migrated, noone can tell precisely when (with votes one at least has a "progress bar"). So, they should wait, and also nobody should better answer because migrating answered questions seems still worse for the receiving site IMO. Or, of course they could just copy paste the post over to the other site, but they should not because...some general consideration about cross-posting. Let us better focus on the interests of the people asking the questions. | |
| Jun 28, 2013 at 18:27 | comment | added | user9072 | @Kaveh: I agree there could be problems if there are migration path open that could lead to controvesy (see my comments related to stats and the potential for controversy also see my slight unhappiness about Andres Caicedo's comment since such things precisley reinforce this worry). But as said for TeX it should be fine. I do however not agree that community moderation is only to reduce the load. It is also for getting things done all the time and as quickly as possible. Uncontroversial closures can happen within minutes on the site, and for clear migrations this should be the same... | |
| Jun 28, 2013 at 18:16 | comment | added | Kaveh | @quid, there are good reasons why migration to an arbitrary site is restricted to moderators. I think the main point of user migration is to reduce the work load for moderators and that makes sense only when the site gets a large enough number of questions requiring migration to a particular site and opening the migration path is not going to create more trouble than it is trying to solve. | |
| Jun 28, 2013 at 18:06 | comment | added | Kaveh | @quid, one issue with migration is that when a question is migrated it is closed and cannot be reopened anymore by users. This causes issues since other users might disagree with some migrations performed by other users, i.e. migration can be abused to permanently get rid of a question a few people just don't like. In addition migration needs agreement from both sites, migrating unsuitable questions would be annoying for the target site users. And there are a number of other issues. I think TeX - LaTeX is probably fine but for other sites the issue is more delicate IMO. | |
| Jun 28, 2013 at 16:41 | comment | added | user9072 | @FrançoisG.Dorais Finally, as a general addition. I am not for all kinds of paths, for example IMO Andres Caicedo's suggestion is a bit exagerated (and in the end unhelpful but perhaps it was only meant in a playful way). Specifically, I did not suggest TCS for example, for reasons close to the ones you explained some while ago on the metas. (And I assume you had not seen my second comment, regarding why the number of times this happens is nto so relevant. Also I asked if there is a reason against it if there is none why not have it, it is not as it costs a lot to open that path [I assume].) | |
| Jun 28, 2013 at 16:40 | comment | added | François G. Dorais Mod | That was less precise than I wanted. Is it necessary to have a migration path to tex.se that does not require moderator intervention? I don't think so since I can't imagine we would suddenly get more than one tex.se every few months. At that rate, mods can do it manually upon request. | |
| Jun 28, 2013 at 16:37 | comment | added | user9072 | @FrançoisG.Dorais ...to wait since there might be things to be discussed (on MO) and perhaps with the other site. But for tex.SE? And, I think to look at sheer numbers and to conclude this is not so frequent moderators can handle this. Time is a critical factor here. The faster the better. You (the moderators) will always remain able to migrate but to have an additional means for doing it seems like an improvement. (This is really not to complain, but it happened mod-flags are dealt with with significant delay only.) | |
| Jun 28, 2013 at 16:30 | comment | added | user9072 | @FrançoisG.Dorais: of course it is not necessary, until recently we did just fine for years without any migration path after all. But I think this is the wrong question to ask if it is necessary. Whether it is desirable or what vould even be reason against it seems more pertinent to me. But let us not discuss the number, as you see I suggested 4 and then reduced to basically just one in addition (tex) with the option of adding Academia later. Do you see a reason for having migration open to tex.SE? By contrast, I could see reasons why for stats.SE there could be reasons... | |
| Jun 28, 2013 at 14:06 | comment | added | François G. Dorais Mod | I don't think more than 4 is even remotely necessary since mods can always migrate anywhere else for the very rare exceptions. | |
| Jun 28, 2013 at 0:43 | comment | added | user9072 | @AdamLear: thank you for this clarification. This is not very much 4, but well. If 4 is really the maximum, perhaps let us keep one spare for the time when Academia will be mature and in the mean time we could have at least tex.SE in addition to math.SE (and perhaps Mathematica, or also something else). But, I think, really TeX is the most unproblematic one. If you want to give us an easy one, that is still useful, to practise, I think TeX is really the way to go. | |
| Jun 28, 2013 at 0:37 | comment | added | Adam Lear StaffMod | @quid Four is the upper limit. Four other sites + the site's own meta (that is a migration path always available on every site). The minimum is zero. | |
| Jun 28, 2013 at 0:37 | comment | added | Kaveh | hmmm, I think she meant 4 as the maximum possible. On other sites Stack Overflow takes one of those slots, I guess that is why I thought max is 3. | |
| Jun 27, 2013 at 23:40 | comment | added | user9072 | @Kaveh: in Anna Lear's answer it is said they would be happy to set up up to 4 defaults. So 4 seems like the minimum that is possible (and the formulation does not even suggest this is some strict upper-limit), which is why I suggested three in addition to the existing one. By post separately, do you mean I should post an answer for each so that people can vote on them individually? I am not sure this is necessary, but of course if somebody wants to do a poll they can go ahead. | |
| Jun 27, 2013 at 23:30 | comment | added | Kaveh | I am not sure, but IIRC there cannot be more than 3 migration paths. It would be better to post these separately so it is easier to evaluate the amount of support each of them has. | |
| Jun 27, 2013 at 22:10 | history | answered | user9072 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |