2
\$\begingroup\$

There are a number of reasons why migrating to stack overflow is a good thing:

  1. People who ask off-topic questions on Code Review are able to get answers to their questions (even if it is on a different site)
  2. ....

Hmm, that's right, there's only really one good reason for migrating to Stack Overflow.

Now, until recently, in those cases where a question can be migrated to Stack Overflow, only a moderator could migrate it. Let's look at some recent statistics... in the past 3 months, 15 questions were migrated.. that's one question a week. So, clearly, we are not talking about heavy volumes.

Those are the questions that were migrated successfully. In my previous moderator experience, many times the migration failed because the question asker is question-banned on Stack Overflow - they come to Code Review because their questions are not allowed there.

In addition, migration requires 3-migrate votes (a majority) before it happens, so, it's a numbers game: 3 people vote to close as "off-topic - broken code", and the other migration votes don't work.... which will lead to flags anyway for moderators to intervene .... or, nothing.

Further, it will encourage people to answer off-topic questions here on Code Review if they anticipate that the question will be migrated away, instead of closed. Someone asks a broken-code question, may as well answer it here instead of waiting for the migration... right? Then, the migration does not happen, but we still end up with a culture of answering bad questions instead of closing them (Oh, and don't forget there's a double-reputation bonus - any upvotes you get on Code Review will be applied to Stack Overflow too....). Hey, it also solves a FGITW problem - you can get your answer in before the gunslingers on SO.

Finally, the close-vote privilege is obtained at 500-rep, which is far too low for a site to have migrate-away privileges.

So, in summary:

  1. it's a problem that does not need a solution because it is a tiny problem to start with
  2. almost all migrated questions need to be heavily edited before migration because Code Review questions are not great SO questions.
  3. many questions deserving migration can't be migrated because the askers are Q-banned on SO.
  4. it encourages people to answer off-topic questions because they anticipate a migration
  5. the people voting to close may not have enough experience on our site to decide.
\$\endgroup\$
9
\$\begingroup\$

How about we wait and see a little?

it's a problem that does not need a solution because it is a tiny problem to start with

Indeed, it's a tiny problem - why make a mountain out of it? The typical code dump "where's my bug?" broken code post is also off-topic on SO. There are much fewer viable migration candidates than off-topic questions we close as such... so yeah, it's a "small problem" with a somewhat flawed solution, but does the fact that migrations are flawed SE-wide mean that we shouldn't be using them at all? What about the odd case where it would be useful?

almost all migrated questions need to be heavily edited before migration because Code Review questions are not great SO questions

If a question needs to be heavily edited to be a suitable migration candidate... it's not a suitable migration candidate to begin with. Again, a broken code question doesn't mean the post can be migrated. Coming up with a MCVE isn't our job. If the question has broken code but isn't a MCVE or involves more than a bite-size amount of code, don't vote to migrate, close as broken.

many questions deserving migration can't be migrated because the askers are Q-banned on SO

Not all broken code questions belong on SO. I have a hard time imagining a Q-banned SO user asking a good, migration-worthy SO question elsewhere. Most likely the question will feature a non-trivial amount of code and a poor explanation of what the problem actually is.

it encourages people to answer off-topic questions because they anticipate a migration

I think this is a stretch, and as a moderator I find it a duty to treat rep-whoring, non-review answers to off-topic questions as such, and will downvote them (and/or annotate, and/or delete, accordingly) rather than encourage them - and I expect the rest of the community to do the same.. well at least to flag them as non-answers.

the people voting to close may not have enough experience on our site to decide

Fair point - we all know privilege thresholds are very wrong and tailored to much smaller sites. Although, at 500 rep you should know the rules of the site you're on, and be responsible enough to hold back on migrate votes when you don't have that privilege on the target site. Let's just see how it goes.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ "Indeed, it's a tiny problem" - the problem we have now is "tiny" but the problems that migrations creates are much larger - that is my point - migration paths make things worse. \$\endgroup\$ – rolfl Nov 18 '15 at 12:12
  • \$\begingroup\$ Migration paths for low rep users make things much worse @rolfl. \$\endgroup\$ – RubberDuck Nov 19 '15 at 23:32
  • \$\begingroup\$ "Wait and see" was almost 3 years ago. Should this question get a follow-up to evaluate how it goes? \$\endgroup\$ – Mast Sep 11 '18 at 20:18
5
\$\begingroup\$

Finally, the close-vote privilege is obtained at 500-rep, which is far too low for a site to have migrate-away privileges.

This is the problem I see with having a migration path at all right now. The migration path is a Good Thing(Tm), but giving that tool to users with such a low amount of experience is asking for trouble.

I've said it before, I'll say it again...

Cure the disease, not the symptom.

We need SE staff to raise the privilege levels so that this never becomes a problem to begin with.

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

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