Timeline for Should Server Fault be removed from Stack Overflow's migration list?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
32 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:32 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 13:35 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 9:11 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| Mar 28, 2013 at 11:58 | comment | added | tombull89 | The point is, SF has been removed from the list. SU is also on the edge of asking to be removed because so many SO users though "NOT PROGRAMMING! chuck it to another site". Jeff himself said "don't use SF as your trash bin". People did. SF didn't like it. SO can't migrate to SF any more. Join ServerFault Chat if you still want to talk. | |
| Mar 28, 2013 at 11:55 | comment | added | tombull89 | @ChrisMoschini Apache? Sure. Come on over. LAMP stacks? Nope, sorry. LAMP stacks are generally used to get a quick'n'dirty dev enviroment. The ServerFault FaQ says the site is for `Server Fault is for [those] needing expert answers related to managing computer systems in a professional capacity so if it's your job to manage a computer network, that's good. If you're mucking around with stuff at home, SuperUser is for you. | |
| Mar 28, 2013 at 11:28 | comment | added | Chris Moschini | @tombull89 You can't say you welcome newbies but only "professional" ones. People arrive from Google seeing specific topics are covered and ask about those topics. On SO if I'm asking about C#, I'm on topic. On SF if I have a question about Apache, am I on topic? Only if it's a "professional" question? You need to give novices a starting place. | |
| Mar 28, 2013 at 10:56 | comment | added | tombull89 | @ChrisMoschini, SFs problem is the fact it's geared to "professional-level" unlike all-come, all-served such as SO. Newbies are very much so welcome on SF, we just expect them to do a bit of research on their own and no got "here's my problem, plz help". It's a difficult position for SF to be in but we expect people to read the FaQ and abide by what is laid out therein, pretty much we would on any other Stack Exchange site. As I said, you're more than welcome to propose re-adding SF to SO's migration target, but if that does happen, SF wil lose a lot of its knowledgeable users. And that's bad. | |
| Mar 28, 2013 at 10:40 | comment | added | Chris Moschini | @tombull89 ServerFault's problems don't stem from StackOverflow; they stem from a bad user model. Newbies google things and find SO or SF. Jeff Atwood got the importance of newbies: blog.stackoverflow.com/2008/09/podcast-23 SF's problem is this: i.imgur.com/olhEvMX.png | |
| Mar 28, 2013 at 8:50 | comment | added | tombull89 | @ChrisMoschini, there were a lot of non-mod users over at SF that supported the removal of SF from the migrations list. And, FWIW, Shog9 is a member of SE's community team. Still, if you want to propose re-adding SF to SO's migration list, go right ahead. | |
| Mar 28, 2013 at 3:23 | comment | added | Chris Moschini | This change is just sad. It's a classic case of moderators turning their noses up at new users. | |
| Nov 30, 2012 at 19:33 | vote | accept | MDMarra | ||
| Nov 30, 2012 at 19:04 | history | edited | Shog9 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 79 characters in body
|
| Nov 30, 2012 at 3:12 | comment | added | Shog9 | @MDMarra: it's... not looking good. | |
| Nov 30, 2012 at 3:11 | history | edited | Shog9 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
sigh
|
| Nov 24, 2012 at 20:53 | comment | added | MDMarra | @Shog9 Any update on your feelings about this? We're still getting a large volume of WAMP/debugging questions that should never have been migrated and plenty that are mind numbingly bad. We're quickly approaching 50% rejected. Now that I've earned Marshall from all of the terrible migrations, I think we should go nuclear. | |
| Nov 20, 2012 at 12:55 | comment | added | MDMarra | @Mikhail did you bother to read our FAQ? It's pretty well defined. We're for professionals admins that have questions relating to managing computers/servers in a professional capacity. Also, we existed before any of those other sites. If anyone has an identity crisis, it's them not us. :) | |
| Nov 20, 2012 at 6:49 | comment | added | Mikhail | I am browsing this website for the first time, and I have no clue what it is about. Is it about linux? That is a different one. Is it about LAMP? Webmasters could be about that. Is it about professional questions? There already is one like that. This discussion reflects an extensional crisis for the website. What are you about? | |
| Nov 14, 2012 at 18:11 | comment | added | tombull89 | One of those users had 11k, another had 19k, and another had 260k rep. I'm not saying they all voted to migrate but two out of those three had just the account association rep on SF. There's another point in the "minimum rep required to move" idea. | |
| Nov 14, 2012 at 18:08 | comment | added | MDMarra | @Shog9 Honestly, when are they going to realize that we are those evil men and live solely to make their lives miserable! | |
| Nov 14, 2012 at 18:08 | comment | added | Michael Hampton | @Shog9 A large percentage of Stack Overflow users. | |
| Nov 14, 2012 at 17:57 | comment | added | Shog9 | Wow. That's just ridiculous... Who would ask a bunch of sysadmins to help fight the evil man running their network?! | |
| Nov 14, 2012 at 17:51 | comment | added | MDMarra | Ok, lets start nuking shit. This is getting stupid. | |
| Nov 13, 2012 at 21:01 | comment | added | sysadmin1138 Mod | I don't want to go nuclear for at least 60 days, better 90. That should help get the queues whittled down, and time for the subtitle change to take effect. | |
| Nov 13, 2012 at 19:13 | comment | added | HopelessN00b | @voretaq7 I'm not sure it's just SO migration hate; I see a lot of questions with what I consider to be questionable close votes. Seems to me to be that some of the reviewers on SO err on the side of VTC when they come across a question that's maybe a little too simple or seems like it could be coming from someone who's not a professional SA, regardless of whether or not they were migrated. And it's probably an issue that needs attention, but is (IMO) independent of the cross-site migrations issue, except that migrations also get caught up in the "home/unprofessional user, GTFO" attitude. | |
| Nov 13, 2012 at 19:05 | comment | added | voretaq7 Mod | @Shog9 Honestly I expect migrations to continue to suck network-wide until/unless the feedback loop is closed somehow - I know it's probably a non-trivial fix, but I think it's the only way to really put the issue to bed. | |
| Nov 13, 2012 at 19:03 | comment | added | voretaq7 Mod | @Shog9 Agreed - SO is not the only site migrating stuff here that isn't a good fit, and I know our outbound migrations aren't perfect either. SO just get the bulk of the hate because they are the largest volume of migrations (by an order of magnitude) which makes quality issues more visible. | |
| Nov 13, 2012 at 19:00 | comment | added | Shog9 | @Chris: I plan to review the stats weekly (I have a reminder set, which may or may not accomplish anything, but...) - if there's no change, or it continues getting worse, then I give up. Also, regarding scale: the total number of questions that have gotten SF migration votes on SU for all time is well under the number on SO just this past month. There's no sane way to even begin to compare that. | |
| Nov 13, 2012 at 18:58 | comment | added | Shog9 | @voretaq7: SO isn't the only community that could use some education. | |
| Nov 13, 2012 at 18:44 | comment | added | Chris S Mod | All the sites have a large backlog of questions with pending close votes. While rejections from all the sites are up (and most are higher than our outbound rejections) SO has been a constant and habitual offender for a long time running, and is currently sitting at a 43% rejection rate. Most of us expect that to climb over 50% in the coming weeks. I understand the desire to take a measured and cautious approach to the situation, but where's the cutoff? Do they get 30 days? 90? Does it have to get worse than 50/50? Where's the line in the sand where we say "this is too bad to save?" | |
| Nov 13, 2012 at 18:43 | comment | added | voretaq7 Mod | My larger concern is becoming that the plurality of good migrations are getting caught up in "Stack Overflow Hate" -- Case in point, this question is certainly a good one (if a bit basic), but it's accumulated 3 close votes... | |
| Nov 13, 2012 at 18:37 | comment | added | MDMarra | At what point do you pick up the big red phone? I'm all for giving things a chance, but this has been a problem for a long time. | |
| Nov 13, 2012 at 18:20 | history | answered | Shog9 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
