Timeline for Should Server Fault be removed from Stack Overflow's migration list?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 21, 2012 at 19:29 | comment | added | Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight | @MichaelHampton SO is in the process if removing the homework tag; for lower quality questions the process looks a lot like nuking from orbit. I suspect the close queue is being refilled significantly faster than normal. Assuming most of the 20k to 13k reduction over the last two months has been the destruction of negative scored questions, the drain rate will probably speed up significantly in the medium term future. | |
| Nov 9, 2012 at 2:48 | comment | added | Michael Hampton |
At the rate SO's /review/close queue is draining, I expect it to be well over a year before it's gone. It's only gone from 56K to 52K in the last month.
|
|
| Nov 8, 2012 at 15:54 | comment | added | voretaq7 Mod | @JohnGardeniers Certainly not, but the kind of folks who just blindly click on the close reason that already has blue circles rather than thinking for themselves fall into that category, and combining them with the natural close vote inertia leads to Bad Times... | |
| Nov 8, 2012 at 7:44 | comment | added | John Gardeniers | I'd just like to say that not everyone who reviews is a "badge seeker". | |
| Nov 8, 2012 at 4:08 | comment | added | voretaq7 Mod | @ChrisS The 60-day rule is pretty new (in terms of the 90 day migration history) - it's hard to say what effect that's had until there's a good 60 days of data. Right now we've got the old, unregulated /review & migrate situation. That said I agree bad migrations have been a chronic problem - removing it from the migration list just strikes me as a Method 1 solution which should be our last resort... (we may well be at "last resort" time though. near-50% rejection rate is completely unacceptable) | |
| Nov 8, 2012 at 0:58 | comment | added | Scott Pack | @ChrisS: That's kind of my point. Without some kind of system in place to either review the migrations before they get posted to the main site, or restrict who has access to migrate.... I'm feeling like such a whiner, because I desperately want the migration system to be better, but without something relatively drastic it was designed too asynchronously to be reasonably addressed. Sad pirate is sad. | |
| Nov 8, 2012 at 0:56 | comment | added | Chris S Mod | @voretaq7 I'm very skeptical of how many questions are dredged up by the review process on SO to be sent over here. They can't migrate "old" questions anymore. Perhaps you're right, but SO migrations have been a problem so much longer than the Review system has been around. | |
| Nov 8, 2012 at 0:55 | comment | added | Chris S Mod | @ScottPack Even when we've yelled at people... There are about 10 migration per day and last time I looked at one day's worth there were only a couple duplicate users... It was something like 42 unique users.... You could spend your whole day yelling at them and there'll be 42 new ones tomorrow. | |
| Nov 8, 2012 at 0:44 | comment | added | Scott Pack | Part of the problem is that considering how little administrative control exists over user behavior I don't see how we can fix the problem on their end. There is no non-voluntary feedback loop. All we can do is compile a list of frequently offending users and have a mod @@ them with educational notices. | |
| Nov 7, 2012 at 22:02 | comment | added | Rob Moir | I'd suggest that the problems with SO, heck with any of the sites, aren't to do with the people who understand that they need education and will take the time to educate themselves but with the people who just click click click. We all make mistakes, have bad judgement on occasion, or whatever, but whenever I've seen debates on migrations on SO there's usually someone who essentially says "I never/rarely visit site X but I know what's on topic there" and gets offended when they're called on it. It's hard to fight that. | |
| Nov 7, 2012 at 21:16 | comment | added | sysadmin1138 Mod | The SO reject rate has moved from the high teens to 20% before the review queue went in, and that was bad enough. However, Voretaq has the right idea as to why now. Shit is being shoved all over StackExchange thanks to /review. | |
| Nov 7, 2012 at 21:12 | comment | added | voretaq7 Mod |
@MDMarra The reject rate prior to /review was usually in the low 20% range -- I won't argue that 20% rejects is GOOD, but it was a vaguely tolerable annoyance. A quick look at stackoverflow.com/review shows over 50,000 questions in their close queue though, which makes me think the answer to my Question 1 above is "Oh HELL no!"
|
|
| Nov 7, 2012 at 21:06 | comment | added | MDMarra | This problem has existed before the queue and a random sampling of rejected migrations shows that most of it is garbage and not our badge-hunters being overly zealous. All that the new tools have done is make it more easily quantifiable and identifiable for us. The "Stack Overflow doesn't migrate crap" joke has been going on amongst regulars since the inception of chat. | |
| Nov 7, 2012 at 21:00 | history | answered | voretaq7Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |