First, I hope that the request is appropriate and asked at the right place. If you have any issue with it, remarks are warmly welcomed.

When flagging a question for "Off-topic > This question belongs to another SE site", the possible choices include Meta.MO, Maths.SE and Cross Validated. Would it be possible to add Academia.SE in this list, please ? In the same vein, adding MathsEducators.SE sounds right, as both of these websites are closely tied to MO (though I must admit I'm not quite aware of the current state of ME.SE, so this last proposition may be a bit premature).

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ MESE is still in beta, so we cannot establish a migration channel yet. It is a possible migration target, but I think it would be best discussed after MESE is out of beta. Also, moderators can migrate to any other SE site, so if the flux of questions that belong to academia.SE is small, the migration channel does not seem necessary. There is also a limit on the number of migration targets, but we can of course revert changes that we are not happy with. $\endgroup$ Apr 10 '15 at 11:00
  • $\begingroup$ Okay, I didn't know about the migration limit ; assuming it is $3$ as Emil said (before withdrawing his comment, sadly), then the question pretty much loses its interest. Unless one is willing to sacrifice the path to Meta, for instance, but that would probably deserve its own debate, assuming it is worth anything. $\endgroup$
    – Hachino
    Apr 10 '15 at 11:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Actually, the discussion at meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/141 indicates that the limit is 4, not including meta.MO. So, there is still room for two more migration targets. $\endgroup$ Apr 10 '15 at 11:15
  • $\begingroup$ The same discussion also show a lot of support for inclusion of academia.SE, except that the site was still in beta at the time. $\endgroup$ Apr 10 '15 at 11:21
  • $\begingroup$ Wow. It's been two years since we migrated here. :| $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Apr 10 '15 at 11:52
  • $\begingroup$ Could you give a list of (recent) examples that could be migrated? If there are not a lot of instances it seems not necessary to have an open pqth. Instead just flag for moderator with the request. $\endgroup$
    – user9072
    Apr 10 '15 at 14:31
  • $\begingroup$ In the past three months, there have been 3 migrations to Academia.SE. One was rejected because the question had already been crossposted. $\endgroup$ Apr 10 '15 at 16:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ In case somebody is not aware and interested in more details, 10k+ users have access to such data too mathoverflow.net/tools/posts/migrated/away $\endgroup$
    – user9072
    Apr 10 '15 at 19:50
  • $\begingroup$ @quid : Actually, the question was prompted precisely by a question asked on MO which was about reviewing and publishing - but the author quickly withdrawed it and I don't have 10k rep, so I can't give a link. But if you look at recently (~24 hrs) erased questions, perhaps you will find it. Tags were, if I'm not mistaken, "review" and "publishing". $\endgroup$
    – Hachino
    Apr 11 '15 at 13:08
  • $\begingroup$ @Hachino I see. I would have a hard time finding it though, as self-deletions are not in this list. $\endgroup$
    – user9072
    Apr 11 '15 at 13:09

Migrations are often a point of contention between communities, so we are very conservative when it comes to adding default migration paths. In essence, a site would need to show a history of successful migrations before a new default can be added. (Yes, this is a bit of a Catch-22 since you'll need a moderator's help to migrate to a site not on the default migration path.)

In the past 90 days, there have been 3 migrations to Academia and one of those was rejected. Compared to the current defaults (Mathematics—140 migrations; 10 rejected and Statistics—10 migrations; 1 rejected) there's not a lot of evidence for this migration path.

So for the moment, I won't be adding a migration path. But we can look again if there are more migrations to Academia in the future.

  • 16
    $\begingroup$ I don't disagree with the assessment that 3 is pretty low, but the one that was rejected was because it was duplicate of the crossposted version, which did okay there. I don't think that should count as an additional negative. $\endgroup$ Apr 11 '15 at 6:50

You must log in to answer this question.

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