Timeline for Should Server Fault be removed from Stack Overflow's migration list?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 13, 2012 at 5:29 | comment | added | Michael Dillon | What if moving on means pushing the "I don't know" button so that the questions are unanswered. If an article gets too many of those it would simply disappear. But if it gets 5 people to venture an opinion about the content then it gets migrated. That way articles only get migrated if the reviewer feels that there is some value in the Q&A. Even today you can vote an item as off topic without specifying any destination but the UI doesn't make that clear. | |
| Nov 13, 2012 at 1:10 | comment | added | DerfK | @MichaelDillon I gave you a +1 because I desperately wish this would work, but playing 20 questions only works when both sides want it to work, and I think John is right: many of the people doing the migrating would just press whatever it takes to move on, even if it means randomly mashing yes or no. | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 18:38 | comment | added | Michael Dillon | But John, in my suggestion the site names would no longer be offered as an option. Only yes/no questions about content. The migration voters would not be able to send a post to any specific site, only answer questions about the content. Then the backend could be configured (decision table) to migrate to a certain site or not. | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 5:55 | comment | added | John Gardeniers | The migration problems we experience are seldom the result of moderator actions. It's usually caused by regular members who are merely attempting to empty the garbage from their own site and really couldn't give a crap where it ends up. All evidence suggests that they normally don't read anything about the destination site other than its name. You're expecting the migration voters to display a level of care, diligence and even intelligence for which there is absolutely no evidence. | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 5:45 | comment | added | Michael Dillon | Not just two or three lines. Right now the display is 5 or 6 sites as possible targets. That same physical space could probably hold a dozen questions. Some of them would be related to things that are on topic for SF, others related to things that clearly point to one of the other related sites. The fact is that moderators have not memorized the FAQ of SF and all the other sites so they need help (in the form of some kind of topic reminder) when sending a question somewhere else. We need something like a botanical taxonomy used to key out species identification or a medical diagnostic tree. | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 2:34 | comment | added | John Gardeniers | If you can describe what's on topic for SF in just two or three lines I'd really like to see an example. | |
| Nov 10, 2012 at 20:57 | history | answered | Michael Dillon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |