This question is motivated by this post, but not exclusively.

When we flag OP's as off topic, under the "this question belongs in another site of the stack community", the StackOverflow website is not there. This is despite the fact that I see, once so often, fellow numerical-analysts wander along with matlab/sage coding questions, which belongs there.

I suggest adding the SO option to this flag.


Each Stack Exchange site has a limited number of "default" migration paths (those sites that show up when you vote/flag to close as Off Topic > Belongs on another site). These paths should be reserved for those sites for which there is a proven need for fairly frequent migration. I'm not sure if too many "Stack Overflow questions" get asked here, or how frequently such migrations are successful, though others could look into the statistics.

For information about when migrations paths should be set up, see the following on Meta Stack Exchange

My feeling is that there such questions are rather infrequently asked here, and it is not worth it to add Stack Overflow as another default path.

If you feel that an SE site not among the default is the appropriate site for a question, you can use a moderator-only "in need of moderator intervention" flag and describe your request. Site moderators can migrate questions to any other SE site.

Such questions can also be closed simply as off-topic ("This question does not appear to be about research level mathematics within the scope defined in the help center") possibly with an accompanying comment directing the asker to a site which might be better suited. (Unless you are very familiar with the target site, I highly advise against using definitive phrasings such as "This question belongs on....", and would suggest instead something like "This question might be better suited on....".)

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks. I wonder, why is there a limited number of migration paths? I can see no theoretical or practical way to abuse an unlimited number of paths... $\endgroup$ – Amir Sagiv Apr 26 '16 at 19:54
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I don't think it's about abuse, but rather HCI and human nature. Cluttering up the current interface with too many sites would be ugly and unwieldy. (Admittedly, the UI could be updated, but this would likely be low on the priority list.) Jeff Atwood described it as a "Don't Make Me Think barrier", with the meaning that with too many options users would spend too much time/effort deciding which of many possibilities is the correct one. $\endgroup$ – user642796 Apr 26 '16 at 20:02

You must log in to answer this question.

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