2
\$\begingroup\$

I am shocked by the migration of How to use multiple if-statements once? to Stack Overflow. It is not broken code and it is not asking for any behavioral changes.

Unfortunately I cannot see the comments on Code Review because it was migrated to Stack Overflow. The UI says it was migrated by @Flater, @TobySpeight, @pacmaninbw, @greybeard, and @SᴀᴍOnᴇᴌᴀ.

Why was the question moved?

Edit: I now see why the question is justifiably closed.

\$\endgroup\$
11
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ "It was migrated by Flater, TobySpeight, pacmaninbw, greybeard, and SᴀᴍOnᴇᴌᴀ." Unfortunately, it's not that easy. If 3 of those voted to migrate while 2 of them only voted to close, they all get their name on it anyway. I'm not sure what happens at 2 out of 5 and 1 out of 5, but the Stack Exchange UI is quite obtuse in this regard, in being unwilling to show what really happened. \$\endgroup\$
    – Mast Mod
    Jan 7 at 10:20
  • \$\begingroup\$ I am considering asking Cody and Makyen to migrate this question back to CR, but I want to hear counter-arguments before I proceed. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 7 at 10:22
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I'm guessing that part of the reason for migrating the question was the fact that the code itself was condensed down to something very close to an example. Additionally the OP seems to only be interested in a very specific aspect of the code. That focus is something that may be better served on stack overflow compared to code review. \$\endgroup\$
    – Vogel612
    Jan 7 at 10:53
  • \$\begingroup\$ Would you have migrated it @Vog ? \$\endgroup\$ Jan 7 at 11:07
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ FWIW one could argue the question is off-topic for lacking a description of what the code does. "Code that is just dumped without an explanation is, in Code Review terms, "unclear", and is likely to be closed as "Unclear what you are asking."". So the question being 'on-topic' certainly is debatable. \$\endgroup\$
    – Peilonrayz Mod
    Jan 7 at 11:30
  • \$\begingroup\$ More migrations (or rejecting the migration) doesn't improve the situation. It's apparently well-received on Stack Overflow and the response so far is that it's not a great question on Code Review. Whether the question should've been migrated is one thing to ask, asking a moderator to turn it back just because the original migration was faulty is quite a step further. \$\endgroup\$
    – Mast Mod
    Jan 7 at 12:20
  • \$\begingroup\$ I will not ask for the reverse migration if the question is off-topic and only appropriate for Stack Overflow. If the question is not off-topic or can be edited to be on-topic on CodeReview then I feel it should exist on CodeReview because it is a working script seeking review / refactoring. To migrate a question because of its title seems fickle to me -- just edit the title instead (much less heavy lifting would be involved). \$\endgroup\$ Jan 7 at 12:27
  • \$\begingroup\$ I plan to review the script, but I'd rather it be posted on CodeReview if deemed the appropriate home for the question. It is not pseudo code. If you want more of the script, ask for it instead of migrating it. If you must close it until it is repaired -- fine, let's maintain the standard and give the OP a chance to edit. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 7 at 12:29
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I voted to close, I did not vote to migrate. It should not have been migrated. There was actually enough information in the comments for an answer. I did leave a comment that it lacked review context. \$\endgroup\$
    – pacmaninbw
    Jan 7 at 12:44
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ After reading the question again, there are missing methods. The script is missing essential parts. This also makes migrating to Stack Overflow inappropriate -- since we aren't meant to move incomplete questions between communities. I think it would have been more appropriate to simply close the question in CR and wait for sufficient editing. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 7 at 12:44
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Like @pacmaninbw, I voted to close for insufficient review context, and would expect to re-open when that context was added. I didn't propose migration. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 7 at 15:46
3
\$\begingroup\$

Thank you for calling us out on this.

From my perspective

One would think that after 3352 CV reviews a user in the review queues should know what he or she is doing. I admit that I was the fifth reviewer and I came into it, seeing that it had:

  • 1 CV for missing context
  • 2 votes for migration
  • I.I.R.C. 1 vote for needs more detail.

Regretfully I didn't fully evaluate whether the post would be on-topic were it to be migrated and went with the majority. I was likely in the mindset of closing it A.S.A.P. to avoid off-topic answers.

Going forward:

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ So at this point, the page is doomed to remain at Stack Overflow because it is inappropriate to migrate a page to a community where the question is off-topic/closable. Until the OP improves the post, the alleged bad migration cannot be remedied. If the snippet included more of the relevant parts of the script, would you support the reverse migration? \$\endgroup\$ Jan 8 at 0:34
  • \$\begingroup\$ I would support migration if it was on-topic for CR. You may or not be familiar with the process suggested in the latter part of this meta answer about migration - sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 8 at 1:01
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Because I regularly migrate SO questions to Joomla Stack Exchange, I am across the process and generally have pretty snappy response times on migration requests. I'll have to wait for the question to be edited by the OP now. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 8 at 1:13
0
\$\begingroup\$

Far as I remember, one of the votes to migrate to SO is from me.
The one thing generally making me choose close is should not be answered as is (and I can't promptly edit to may as well be answered).
This seemed asking for a suitable mechanism for one particular problem rather than a code review - all the more so with three identical statements in one if-elseif sequence: hopefully not actual code from a project.

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • \$\begingroup\$ (I don't think I can edit a question flagged for closing even in one out of 42 cases. More often than not, I don't vote at all on questions I chose to edit.) \$\endgroup\$
    – greybeard
    Jan 7 at 21:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ I feel the vote to migrate was unjustified because the path to being on-topic was merely to edit the title and to copy-paste the missing method declarations into the question body. In short, it was salvageable. The migration "throws the baby out with the bathwater". In the future, please allow salvageable questions, to remain in CR so that they can be repaired, reopened, then reviewed. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 8 at 0:40

You must log in to answer this question.

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